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.
I know I signed off this board...
... but I just received an e-mail from a friend that I thought warranted posting about here. To be clear, he is a lawyer working in Utah. However, what he related to me was stictly a statement of his opinion between friends and not legal advise (as he so carefully stated) given he was not hired by me, etc., etc., etc.
... That said, I will not quote him. However, to paraphrase...
First, he laughed at the petition and the way in which it was constructed. Given the way this all came about... that doesn't much surprise me. There's a great deal more that goes into a legal document than will be cobbled together in a few hours of heated passion.
Second, he fully agrees that to sign the petition and subsequently trade was a huge legal risk. However, unless the petition was actually submitted into the record, it was meaningless.
Third, it was not his opinion there was any legal risk of collusion to manipulate the market... contrary to our personal advocate's claim. Aside from a few comments on language and precedent, the critical factor he noted was that the participants and founders of the boycott were abstaining from "trading" -- not just buying or just selling. In so doing, the participants would not be altering the market -- they simnply were not participating.
Taking his logic into more detail... It can not be assumed that the participants in the boycott were all buyers or sellers or any other combination thereof. The only legal view that could be applied to the group as an agregate was that they represented a statistically normal segment of investors and that the market forces they represeted were statistically equivelent to the market at large.
In abstaining from participation in the markets during the period of the boycott, their non-participation would equate to no alteration in the pressure on the buy or sell side of the market and would constitute nothing more than a decrease in volume.
Given that market forces are defined not by the volume in total, rahter by the ratio of buyers to sellers, and the legal assumption the participants in the boycott would represent the statistical mean of the market, their abstenance represented no alteration in the ratio of buyers to sellers and, therefor, represented no legal grounds for a claim of market manipulation.
While he is not an SEC attorney, he quite good and I found the logic in his opinion to be impecable.
Anyway, I know there are those among us who became rather alarmed at the legal claims being made and thought it worth taking the time to dig into more deeply and to share with the board. No doubt there are arguments to all sides of this, but I must say this was the most reasoned statement of opinion on the matter I have heard to date.
Best regards to you all... I'm gone again. If anyone wishes to respond to this, please feel free to do so via e-mail to me -- spiel@cfl.rr.com
Good trading to all!
Scott.
grw25 -- "crooked" -- interesting choice of words (eom)
grw25 -- I wish I believed that was the only motive (eom)
Sorry, Scott.. that your view was so crooked and you didn't understand...
that Gary was trying to help you and everyone else...
Hope that sinks in later...
:o)
All -- I know not what else may transpire here...
... on this board. But, I'm signing off from here. Time is money and beset focused in other places now.
I wish everyone here the best. Regardless of what-ever happened here, I know that those of us who were involved from word one never had anything other than the best of intentions at heart. However misguided they may have been (which I am still not entirely convinced they ere) we did what we held to be right.
The law are an ass and, sadly, it is possible that once again the law was in the corner of the wrong doer. In the end, we can all hope that justice, common sense and a fair market will prevail.
The best to everyone and I hope to see you again.
Goodbye... Scott.
GB -- One thing you and I will agree on...
"No good deed goes unpunished" -- this I have learned first hand more than once.
Let me add to that -- "No bad deed goes unrewarded"
I know you have some problem with me, whatever. Regardless of your personal opinion I have always lived by the rule that you do what's right... and for that I am repeatedly taken advantage of. No matter, in the end I'll leave knowing I did it right.
Until we cross paths again... Scott.
Wait a minute I did not derail anything ... I merely pointed out what should be pointed out. The Risk Factor:
Say you go out and the street people rob you and your neighbors. Everytime you go out. You complain to the police and they ask you ok what does he look like, what happened, etc. its called specifics. Since you can't really nail it down there is nothing the police can do. So you organize a vigilante and go out after the street people.
After you end up in jail with your neighbors, once the jail cell closes you suddenly realize hind sight 20/20 should have come into to play. Why was I so stupid? you ask yourself over and over again.
Apparently bb got a confirmation about it. I guess some legal minds will say no problem while other say it has a risk factor. But one will or would know until after the act was done. The old saying is "An act has to happen before the authorities can get involved."
I am merely going to take a page on Studied Stocks (non compensated, no stock contest) site and create a way for people to respond to the SEC ... no way to get to Studied Stocks unless they type it in.
I am not going to register another site. Nor am I going to do a fill in the blank letter. I want people to voice they concern if it is nothing more than "I want ECN to be on OTCBB securities" or "Please do not lift the restrictions on short selling" ...
I truly believe in "No good deed will go unpunished" and have experienced that myself. The laws protects the criminals, the innocence will always be the fall guys and the scrapegoats.
If you want to blame me for trying to get focus on responding to the proper authority properly to get reform by voicing our comments and not particpate in a possible scenario that stood to have a possible risk factor for those that have truly honorable intentions. Fine ... But Hades is paved with honorable intentions.
:=) Gary Swancey
Georgia Bard --
As I posted earlier -- otcreform.com is available for registration. Since you pretty much managed to derail the entire thing all by yourself, you might want to consider picking up the torch and using that one for your fill in the blanks letter.
Scott.
You would not believe my databases. Stock, touter, bashers, Dilution stooges, etc. How much have I learned and if it is proper education I do not know.
Since the ones that started a good thing no longer wish to redirect it I am writing a blank page on one of my sites. No IP tracking , No advertising, no registering, no email request no advertising, no information, no monitoring of the page, no hypelinks except to the comments of the SEC.
There all anyone has to do is just click and go. Hopefully this will assist people with exercising the power of the pen. I am including the historical comments submitted so those that are not sure what the comments are for can get an idea.
I hope to get people a place that they can respond easily. These comment processes are vital to reform the OTCBB and give everyone a level playing field.
I will have short selling, Decimal quoting, ECN for OTCBB, and Manning rule. As the SEC has other items to comment on I will add them.
Use the power of the pen to be heard.
:=) Gary Swancey
Didn't say how you got the education, but you still have it! With the Dbases your running for your stock picks, Money Flow Indicators and all, you can't tell me you haven't educated yourself and expect me to believe it!
muel <g>
ALL/ We all watch on level11 the manip ongoing/at some point and time
irreguardless of the petition,we need to be able to provide the SEC withthe ammo we see daily on many stocks!!
With enough persistance they will have to follow up on it!!
Some times VERY vERY VERY unorthodox means can have a very PROFOUND impact and results!!I know this having worked for one of the largest corpoations in the world for 25 long years!!!!!!!!!!!!
This needs to be done at some point and time!!!!!!!!
Later
Al
Patsy,Heck of a good job you did.......I will see ya over there,Thanks for all your work here....
My last post to this board, while trying to do something right I possibly made some mistakes.
It has always been my belief that laws are made to protect the criminals of the world, we law abiding citizens with a conscience have never needed a lot of them but the criminals most certainly do.
As an example, we own a convience store, our county one year set up a sting operation to see how many were selling beer to underage buyers.
Guess what, we got caught even though we have alway trained our employees to NEVER sell beer to underage buyers. As a storeowner we can not be there every second of the day.
When I was served with the warrant I was livid, not at the law enforcement officals but at the employee who directly went against what I had trained them to do. We need our beer license and it would be stupid to take a chance on losing it by breaking the law and also I'm totally against underage drinking in any form.
A twist: I asked on what date the sting took place and at what time so I could go back to the schedule and fire the employee responsible.
The answer from a deputy, off the record he said, don't fire him, the person that was used to buy beer lacked ONE day being 21 years old, he was chosen for the sting because he looked so old, if he were to walk in here right now and try to purchase beer from you in front of me you wouldn't card him because he looks 30 years old.
He plea bargained with the law , he had been arrested for BREAKING AND ENTERING, he was let go and not charged for the crime because he helped them with the sting.
Headlines in the local newspapers read 32 store owners arrested in sting operation for selling alcohol to minors.
My sister-in-law who also owned a store sold hers because it upset her so bad, she's no criminal either.
The fine: if you give a donation to our drug fund we will drop all charges.
My answer, yes, I'll donate to get my name clear but we have been doners to this county every since we've been in business for numerous funds, etc. but never will you get another penny from us for using us in that manner.
Moral of the story, the criminal got away with a crime and we citizens who try not to break any laws were made out to look like common criminals.
My point, we stepped up to the plate and tried to make a difference, we got mean responses, mean e-mail, etc.
We were only trying to help, no more, I will do my part and send in a response to the proposed rule change but that is all I will do.
I take responsibility for my actions but I'm not willing to get up another petition noe work for it in any way. I would not do another petition without the advice or clearance from a SEC attorney nor do I suggest anyone else.
Going back to five and under and going to try and forget this ever happened.
No education here. technical school for US Army Finance Corps in the late 60s early 70s and mechanical trade for 5 years with a GED.
Spent the last 4 years reading and studying the market and being an advocate to reform the OTCBB market. We are close to getting that reform but there will always be issues to respond to ... some will get and some we wont. Some we will get a concession like the Manning rule but in that rhetoric we could lose a lot.
:=) Gary Swancey
LOL that should be "an educated moron small investor".
muel <g>
HECK NO, I am nothing but a moron small investor.
:=) Gary Swancey
I don't believe he is, but take a look at his new board!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=179570
muel <g>
Patsy you do not need legal conusel to get people to sign up for a comment letter to be sent to the SEC. The last one on short had 1478 signature I believe.
Comments of 1478 individuals received using the attached form letter, Batch 01 (File name: s72499b1.htm)
here is the letter:
Comments on SEC Concept Release:
Short Sales
The following information was submitted by 1478 individuals.
Subject: Short Sales (Release No. 34-42037; File No. S7-24-99)
Comments: I am writing you this letter to show that I am in favor of the proposed Concept Release (No. 34-42037; File No. S7-24-99). It is known that the life blood of a small company is access to capital for creation and growth. It is also known that investors who place funds in such companies expect and deserve protection from fraud and manipulation. Small business is a critical building block for jobs and wealth in our economy. MMs have steadily been selling more shares than they have bought, defying the laws of supply and demand, solid company fundamentals and favorable company press releases, resulting in plummeting stock prices. The laws of supply and demand have been denied and investors deprived of fair value. Meanwhile, the company valuation of stock has been greatly reduced and with it, access to investment capital for acquisitions and growth.
The MMs are supposed to provide a fair market trading mechanism, yet ,when they become invested through shorting, they actually have a vested interest in seeing the price fall. This practice must be brought under some form of control.
The Securities Act provides certain protective language as it relates to investors. Section 15A(b)(6) of the Securities Act says that the rules of a national securities association must be designed, among other things to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices and to protect investors and the public interest, and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. Section 15A(b)(11) requires that association rules be designed to produce fair and information quotations, and to prevent fictitious and misleading quotations. In spite of the intent expressed by these two sections of the Securities Act, and unlike the Nasdaq, NYSE and AMEX, MMs are not required by the SEC to disclose short positions on OTCBB stocks.
The MMs can short, even naked short, at will with no checks and balances on OTCBB stocks. This leaves the OTCBB listed companies prey to market manipulation on a scale only limited by the greed and imagination of the MMs. The MMs just keep selling the targeted companies stocks with the idea that they will never have to produce real shares. Their apparent goal is to force the company to fail by depriving it of working capital and discouraging investment. It is my belief billions of dollars are being stolen from investors in this manner. For the MMs, it's a wonderful business; sort of like selling insurance, but never having to pay claims. They get the money, but have no expense or expectation of delivering anything tangible in return. This unfair and counter productive practice cannot go on.
MMs must be held accountable by requiring mandatory disclosure of MM short positions on all OTCBB listed stocks. In this manner, excessive shorting can be made known to the investing public, monitored for excess and corrected by the SEC/NASD. Then and only then can investors in these stocks be treated with the appropriate protection against fraud and manipulation.
:=) Gary Swancey
Isn't G Bard an SEC attorney?
The new draft is ready BUT I'm not willing to put up a petition unless we have a SEC attorney look over it and say it's OK
I do not know a SEC attorney and have no way of getting in touch with one, any suggestions here?
You have pointed out some interesting discussion topics, thats why this board was created and thats what we're doing here. Your input would be welcomed and appreciated should you decide to give it here!
muel <g>
I don't know anymore, we could still possibly be in trouble that way also. Too many legalities to figure out.
A domain suggestion...
I had a quick look at available domain names and see the name "otcreform.com" is available. I have not registered it -- I can if you are interested... or someone else can. Make no matter to my, just thought I would point it out.
Scott.
I posted an opinion on the boycott last night on Eaging Bull.If interested go to:
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=ABCR&read=43941
Respond if you wish but do it as a response to my msg since I don't spend time here.
Yes I do, sorry didn't realize I'd cut that out! Guess I'd better read a little closer!
muel <g>
Don't you think they need to know the specifics on what rule they are petioning against? I do and I think it will be much more effective.
Draft, any suggestions?
Version 2
DO NOT BOYCOTT THE OTC
The petition to boycott the OTC has been canceled. Reasons are from concerns that is may be construed as an attempt to control the OTC markets. This was never our intent. Our intent was to let the SEC know of the level of discontent that's shared by the OTC participants without breaking any laws.
We ask that you DO NOT BOYCOTT THE OTC as I'm sure none of us wants to be accused of doing anything illegal. Instead we will be forwarding a letter to the SEC with your comments on market maker manipulation. Market maker manipulation can be better addressed by voicing your opinions on the following items.
If you use the comment section please voice your discontent with market maker manipulation, short selling etc. and all these comments will be forwarded to the SEC. This new petition will take names and comments until September 17, 2001
I like this better, comments, changes welcome!
muel <g>
Matt.. don't disagree with ideas.. just the method..
I think people should write their own letters and not get tied
to a group... I think that's asking for trouble and....
I think Gary has covered all that much better than I could...
Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier... <em>:o) </em>
George
A comment letter to the SEC on the issues dang right I would be honored to be the first.
:=) Gary Swancey
OTCBB to be quoted by ECN & ATS proposal:
Federal Registry: http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=4746823909+0+0+0&WAISaction=retr....
[Federal Register: August 28, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 167)]
[Notices]
[Page 45348-45350]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28au01-99]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
[Release No. 34-44732; File No. SR-NASD-2001-44]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule
Change by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. to Allow
ECN and ATS Participation on the OTC Bulletin Board
August 22, 2001.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on July 12, 2001, the National Association of Securities Dealers,
Inc. (``NASD'), through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
(``Nasdaq'), filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by Nasdaq. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
\2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of
Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
Nasdaq is proposing to add new NASD Rule 6540(b) to the NASD Rule
6500 Series, which governs the operation of the OTC Bulletin Board
(``OTCBB'). The purpose of the proposed rule change is to permit
alternative trading systems (``ATSs') and electronic communication
systems (``ECNs') to participate in the OTCBB. The text of the
proposed rule change is below. Proposed new language is italicized.
* * * * *
6540. Requirements Applicable to Market Makers
(a) No change.
(b) An alternative trading system (ATS), as defined in Regulation
ATS, Rule 300(a), or electronic communications network (ECN) as defined
in SEC Rule 11Ac1-1(a)(8), shall be eligible to participate in the
Service, provided however, that such ATS or ECN is an NASD member and
otherwise meets the requirements for participation set forth in the OTC
Bulletin Board Rules. Where used in the OTC Bulletin Board Rules, the
term ``market maker' shall be construed to include a participating ATS
or ECN.
(c) No change.
* * * * *
II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, Nasdaq included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. Nasdaq has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A,
B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
1. Purpose
Nasdaq proposed to permit ATSs and ECNs to post quotes and
otherwise participate in the OTCBB. The OTCBB is a quotation service
that displays quotes, last-sale prices, and volume
[[Page 45349]]
information in over-the-counter (``OTC') securities. OTC securities
are equity securities not listed or traded on Nasdaq or a national
securities exchange. OTCBB securities include national, regional, and
foreign equity issues, warrants, units, American Depositary Receipts,
and Direct Participation Programs. Currently, only NASD member firms
registered with the NASD as market makers can post quotes for OTC
securities on the OTCBB. Nasdaq proposes to broaden participation in
the OTCBB by allowing ATSs and ECNs to participate in the OTCBB.
The OTCBB began in 1990 as a pilot program to provide transparency
in the OTC equities market.\3\ In 1997, the program became
permanent.\4\ The OTCBB operates pursuant to the NASD Rule 6500 Series.
These rules provide, among other things, that all securities quoted on
the OTCBB must be sponsored by a participating market maker that
registers the security by completing a Form 211, unless an exemption
applies. The market maker submits the Form 211 to the NASD OTC
Compliance Unit prior to publication of a quote in that security on the
OTCBB. Once cleared, Nasdaq Market Data Integrity notifies the market
maker that it has been registered in the security and may enter a
quote. If the market maker is exempt from Rule 15c2-11 under the
Act,\5\ the market maker submits a Rule 15c2-11 Exemption Form, which
is processed in the same way.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 27975 (May 1, 1990),
55 FR 19123 (May 8, 1990) (approving SR-NASD-88-19); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 27975A (May 30, 1990), 55 FR 23161 (June 6,
1990) (correcting initial approval order).
\4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 38456 (March 31,
1997), 62 FR 16635 (April 7, 1997) (approving SR-NASD-92-7).
\5\ 17 CFR 240.15c2-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed Rule 6540(b), an ATS or ECN would be permitted to
participate in the OTCBB in the same way that a market maker currently
participates. That is, an ATS or ECN that wishes to post a quote in a
security on the OTCBB would register the security by completing a Form
211, unless an exemption applies. The ATS or ECN would submit the Form
211 to the NASD OTC Compliance Unit prior to publication of a quote in
that security on the OTCBB. Once cleared, Nasdaq Market Data Integrity
would notify the ATS or ECN that it has been registered in the security
and may enter a quote. If the ATS or ECN is exempt from Rule 15c2-11,
the ATS or ECN would submit an alternative form indicating that it is
an ATS or ECN and that it is exempt from Rule 15c2-11.
Every OTC security not currently quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board
is considered ``ineligible' until a Form 211 or Rule 15c2-11 Exemption
Form is submitted. Under the current rules and proposed NASD Rule
6540(b), once clearance to quote the security is given, the security is
granted ``eligible' status. Thereafter, any other market maker that
wishes to quote an ``eligible' security must also submit a Form 211 or
Exemption Form. An alternative method for obtaining approval to quote
an ``eligible' security and is exempt from Rule 15c2-11. During the
``eligible' period, a frequency-of-quotation test is administered. The
test must be satisfied before the security is identified as ``active.'
Once the security is ``active,' a market maker, ATS, or ECN need not
submit a Form 211 or Exemption Form before quoting in the security. To
satisfy the test, the security must have been quoted on the OTCBB on at
least 12 business days during the preceding 30 calendar days, with not
more than four consecutive business days without quotations. Market
makers, ATSs, or ECNs would be permitted to register on-line to quote
in a security that has satisfied the test. As long as the security
remains ``active,' any market maker, ATS, or ECN would be permitted to
quote the security without a Form 211 or Exemption Form submission.
Nasdaq has stated that one ATS has expressed interest in
participating in the OTCBB, and Nasdaq believes that there may be
additional ATSs or ECNs interested in participating in the Service.
Proposed NASD Rule 6540(b) would permit such participation.
2. Statutory Basis
Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act.\6\ Section 15A(b)(6)
requires that the rules of a national securities association, among
other things, foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged
in facilitating transactions in securities and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. Nasdaq believes that the proposed rule, by enabling ATS and
ECN participation in the OTCBB, would broaden participation and
increase the transparency and liquidity of the OTCBB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition
Nasdaq does not believe that the proposed rule change would result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing
for Commission Action
Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding, or (ii) as to
which the Nasdaq consents, the Commission will:
(A) by order approve such proposed rule change; or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.
IV. Solicitation of Comments
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Persons making written submissions
should file six copies thereof with the Secretary, Securities and
Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20549-0609.
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the
Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing will also be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
NASD. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2001-44 and
should be submitted by September 18, 2001.
[[Page 45350]]
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 01-21668 Filed 8-27-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
:=) Gary Swancey
Draft, any suggestions?
DO NOT BOYCOTT THE OTC
The petition to boycott the OTC has been canceled. Reasons are from concerns that is may be construed as an attempt to control the OTC markets. This was never our intent. Our intent was to let the SEC know of the level of discontent that's shared by the OTC participants.
We have been informed that we may not have acted legally in the original boycott, our intent was never to manipulate the market nor break any laws.
There is a possibility that we may go to jail over the original boycott petition.
We ask that you DO NOT BOYCOTT THE OTC as I'm sure none of us wants to be accused of doing anything illegal.
Instead we will be forwarding a letter to the SEC with your comments on market maker manipulation.
Market maker manipulation can be better addressed by voicing your opinions on the following items.
In you comment section please voice your discontent with market maker manipulation, short selling etc. and all these comments will be forwarded to the SEC.
This new petition will take names and comments until September 17, 2001
Specifically this new petition focuses on:
File No. S7-24-99, short selling and naked shorting Release number 34-42037 http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-42037.htm … This the most crucial comment you can make. Shorting of securities is out of control and costing the small investors massive amount of dollars by the minute. Short selling rule comments http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/txt-srch-sec?text=s7-24-99&mode=Simple … If the SEC removes the Uptick rule you can expect this shorting to get even more devastating. Also Naked shorting is out of control where Market forces just create stock by sitting on the Ask selling all they can. Then manipulating the market to fall so they can cover what they have sold. If they can’t they spread the bid ask to unbelievable spreads to stop the interest and thus reduce the amount of resistance to take the price of the security down.
Further this petition will respond to vote in favor of ECN & ATS as Market Makers as per this language:
6540. Requirements Applicable to Market Makers (a) No change. (b) An alternative trading system (ATS), as defined in Regulation ATS, Rule 300(a), or electronic communications network (ECN) as defined in SEC Rule 11Ac1-1(a)(8), shall be eligible to participate in the Service, provided however, that such ATS or ECN is an NASD member and otherwise meets the requirements for participation set forth in the OTC Bulletin Board Rules. Where used in the OTC Bulletin Board Rules, the term ``market maker' shall be construed to include a participating ATS or ECN. (c) No change
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2001-44 and should be submitted by September 18, 2001. Thus this petition and its comments will be sent to:
Securities & Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20549-0609
File Number SR NASD 2001-44
All you have to do is sign your name and please comment on the above rules.
I apologize for the original petition but please take the time to do this, it is for the good of all of us, we have a tremendous amount of momentum going and we do not want to lose it.
By signing this petition you are agreeing that you are in favor of
File No. S7-24-99
Release number 34-42037
File No. SR-NASD-2001-44
Thank you.
GB,
I hope when this is completed, that you'll be one of the first to sign. Thanks for your insight, as i too did not realize that anything potentially illegal was happening.
You may have save many from some legal problems.
Again thanks,
GW
My compliments to all on the handling of this...
... I have been tied up with real work all day and unable to follow the developments until now.
... As for the OTCBoycottBoard.com site -- I will assume we are dismantling that and delete the domain.
... The offer remains to put up a central board to be used toward this effort and offer the hosting of it at no charge. However, if GeorgiaBard's accusations that I am in this for some for of personal gain (or whatever) concern you, I will not be at all offended if you would prefer not to accept my offer. I do hope, however, that you will allow me to participate in this if only by providing the web services for you.
With best regards...
Scott.
Just an FYI, the link at the bottom.
Federal registry announcement: http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/cgi-bin/gpogate.test?waisdoc=1&doctype=HTML&docid=::::1773425+11042+....
might be illformed. Gary, do you know what it is supposed to be?
Patsy, you can use whatever you want in getting people to respond to the SEC.
Go for it.
:=) Gary Swancey
OK, I'm ready to do this right, do I have your permission to use this part of of your post number 340 in a new petition?
Since these are your words may I use them?
To: Market Makers (NASD) & the SEC
ATTENTION INVESTORS IT IS TIME TO SAY ENOUUGH IS ENOUGH!!! TIME TO TAKE A STAND AND FOR OUR VOICES TO BE HEARD.
If your tired of Market Maker Manipulation (MMM) of your stocks then we kindly ask you to join us in voicing your opinion on the following items.
File No. S7-24-99, short selling and naked shorting Release number 34-42037 http://www.sec.gov/rules/concept/34-42037.htm … This the most crucial comment you can make. Shorting of securities is out of control and costing the small investors massive amount of dollars by the minute. Short selling rule comments http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/txt-srch-sec?text=s7-24-99&mode=Simple … If the SEC removes the Uptick rule you can expect this shorting to get even more devastating. Also Naked shorting is out of control where Market forces just create stock by sitting on the Ask selling all they can. Then manipulating the market to fall so they can cover what they have sold. If they can’t they spread the bid ask to unbelievable spreads to stop the interest and thus reduce the amount of resistance to take the price of the security down.
Further this petition will respond to vote in favor of ECN & ATS as Market Makers as per this language:
6540. Requirements Applicable to Market Makers (a) No change. (b) An alternative trading system (ATS), as defined in Regulation ATS, Rule 300(a), or electronic communications network (ECN) as defined in SEC Rule 11Ac1-1(a)(8), shall be eligible to participate in the Service, provided however, that such ATS or ECN is an NASD member and otherwise meets the requirements for participation set forth in the OTC Bulletin Board Rules. Where used in the OTC Bulletin Board Rules, the term ``market maker' shall be construed to include a participating ATS or ECN. (c) No change
All submissions should refer to File No. SR-NASD-2001-44 and should be submitted by September 18, 2001. Thus this petition and its comments will be sent to:
Securities & Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street NW
Washington, DC 20549-0609
File Number SR NASD 2001-44
Federal registry announcement: http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/cgi-bin/gpogate.test?waisdoc=1&doctype=HTML&docid=::::1773425+11042+....
The response this petition received in such a short time is nothing short of phenomenal in my opinion. It definitely points out the growing frustration among OTCBB traders/investors in regard to how the market seems to be manipulated by the MM's. It's definitely not a level playing field and is not open to the laws of supply and demand. As a result, there can never be fair trading on the OTCBB until changes are made, most of which are currently being studied by the SEC.
It's also my opinion that the majority of traders/investors will not take it upon themselves to address their concerns to the SEC by sending their own letters or a form letter that's provided to them. But based on the success of this petition, they likely would sign one letter addressed to the SEC outlining our desires as they pertain to needed change.
So if someone intends to redirect this effort, the boycott petition could simply be replaced by a well-worded, all-inclusive letter to the SEC. Then signatures could be obtained on that letter just as it was for the boycott petition. If that letter were then presented to the SEC with 3,000+++ signatures, it would have to garner some consideration from them. I think it would be hard for them to ignore such an effort. JMO...RunninAmuck
The management of this board needs to write a retraction letter explaining the removal of the petition and how investors can redierect their discontent with current OTCBB conditions! This letter should then be spammed all over the Inet, like the petition was, in an effort to keep investors informed. This can be turned into a very positive experience with the right direction. Here was my first attempt to get this done.
The following is an example of a letter to all investor that signed the petition how to redirect their iniative away from the botcott to tradeing!
The petition to boycott tradeing on the OTC from September 24th to the 26th has been canceled. Reasons are from concerns that it may be construed as an attempt to control the OTC market. This was not our intent! Our intent was to let the SEC know of the level of discontent that is, was shared by OTC participants.
Coments improvements wanted!
muel <g>
No I think BB or Patsy or Toshac should make that decision.
:=) Gary Swancey
I understand that Toshac. Now refocus and get a letter or people to respond to the SEC comment process.
:=) Gary Swancey
I'm still trying, I've called them three times, I won't quit trying untill they get it off.
Shac, since you are the CP of the board, can you private Matt to rename the board? You are the only one who can do that. That is another critical milestone for this.
Another excellent idea, are you hot today or what? When you state "Change this thread to something more in line with the orginal concept that drew so many to the petition."
Great idea any suggestions?
muel <g>
Thank you, GB for bringing our attention to our mistakes.
Again we are sorry, and please note
The OTC Boycott is cancelled
That is your choice but the SEC comment process needs to be addressed.
:=) Gary Swancey
Patsy, please call them and tell them to look at there online help email. I have sent in several requests
the market stinks so hopefully Patsy and bb will get an intial draft written. In it they should address the end of the petition and why in very few words.
Then address the short selling, ECN for OTCs, and possibly the manning rule statements and maybe the 100 share trades.
Change this thread to something more in line with the orginal concept that drew so many to the petition. Maybe get the petition site to up a forward address for the comment letter once it is done.
:=) Gary Swancey
I'm not doing another thing, except clean up the current misunderstanding.
Like I said my trading ended last Thursday, and I am walking away for a extended period of time.
I totally agree, it should be redirected and I think by the current board management. Like you I'll do whatever I can to help!
muel <g>
Oh you can set up a petition to gather names on a comment to the SEC ... that is perfectly legal. I am not trying to horn in on anyone;s efforts. The three people who I think should be behind the letter are Patsy, I like bb stocks, & Toshac. No one else should take their place.
They started this and they should redirect it to get as many comments to the SEC like they started out trying do but without the boycott.
:=) Gary Swancey
Followers
|
2
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
642
|
Created
|
09/06/01
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |