I can tell you something for Sure.
"Howie" is truly one of Bet's Friends (and so am I) but You on the other hand are Not.
This board is Bet's Friends, not "Just another Ihub board for bashers to run rampant and spout crap".
And Howie appears to know more more "things" than you will ever...
Cheers to all Bet's Friends,
wasn't it KGB?? LOL
very interesting and scaring what is going on here
Yeah, and I hear Vianna (one of the FFGO mods) just got out of I-Hub detention.
At least the Goat baord has remained civilized, for the moment.
My goodness... I have never heard "Uncle Sam" talk like this before... Sounds like someone needs a time out... lol...
I still say that this is much more simple than this.
You eventually get what you give... If you spend your entire life using people and making your living off the backs of others, you will not be well rewarded at some point...
Too many people have been hurt in recent years.
There is an accounting coming that will shock even the hard core investment types. No one will be exempt from this one. There are People up at the top who still think they will be hiding behind some words that will be totally meaningless when they are looking for heads to mount...
I am still blown away about just how clueless some people are...
Cheers and Goodnight All,
howie really is convinced he knows things.
wish i could tell you more
what i'm aware of was freddie and fannie
and i believe 17 other *financial* concerns
got special *dispensation* from cox .. as in
those who wanted to short them ..
actually had to verify that the shares they
planned to borrow against .. actually were
*available* .. that was a couple of weeks
ago .. i've been reading what gets posted
when i can .. the update i posted is from
the first of aug .. will check and see if
i can find anything with today's date on it
i found this blog by former cnbc reporter
bob o'brien .. to be pretty informative
and had posted it here previously ..
Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog
Posted by: bobo 7/21/2008 3:29 AM
UPDATE 7/25: OSTK Press release. Pretty much sums it all up in a way that even the most dim should be able to undersand. Let's see if any of the NY press corps can figure it out and cover it. My bet is, not...
UPDATE 7/22. Over the last few days, the hedge fund apologist media choagies have been in full roar. Nobody is discussing the massive fails that the FTD data shows to be fact, nor are they discussing the SEC's new data showing that the market maker exemption is largely responsible for many of the fails, i.e. it is being abused to manipulate, not hedge or make markets.
No, instead we have been treated to endless proclamations about how good shorts are for the market, how vital they are, and basically unlimited air and print time trying to confound legal short selling (where the seller borrows the stock ahead of selling it), and illegal market manipulation using delivery failures, where the sell order is placed with no borrow, and no intention of delivering.
This should surprise nobody who's been a regular reader of this blog.
I've gotten a lot of emails from people who are unclear on why I'm so disgusted with the market maker exemption from the SEC's emergency measure. Let me explain. The large prime brokers on Wall Street have facilitated and profited hugely from naked short selling. It couldn't take place without them acting as a cartel and cooperating with each others' fictional stock sales. They are a huge part of the problem. But now, they not only are protected by this emergency order from the very crime they perfected, they have gotten an exemption so they, and they alone, can continue to naked short. That's what the exemption means. Nobody can do it to us, but we need to do it to everyone else.
Now, consider some other wrinkles. DMA, for instance. What is that? A rave drug? No, I'm talking about Direct Market Access. That is a privilege afforded to large hedge funds by prime brokers, where they allow the hedge fund to have direct access to the executing broker, bypassing the checks and balances of the prime broker, but appearing to the executing broker as though the trade is coming directly from the prime. That effectively means that the largest hedge funds can behave as though they are the prime - including enjoying the exemptions the prime has. You see, there is nobody in the chain to question whether it is really the prime placing the massive sell orders, or whether it is some wealthy hedge fund with no desire nor intent to deliver anything. It looks the same to the executing broker with DMA. Yet another way to sidestep regulation.
Basically, the market makers have taken a measure that could have actually stopped some of the madness, and bullied or bribed the SEC into giving them the umpteenth hall pass, but with complete protection from everyone but themselves. I heard one rumor that one uber powerful Wall Street honcho told Cox that unless he granted an exemption, the markets wouldn't function for the 30 days of the rule's temporary duration - effectively causing a meltdown and depression. A guy in a position to stop the markets, no BS. That's called extortion, if true. Someone should pull the phone logs and see if that discussion happened. DOJ? But guess what, it won't ever take place. They get away with it again. This is just a rumor, but I have heard it from multiple sources now, and it has the ring of truth. Nothing would surprise me.
So consider the below document in light of this double standard, and in light of the fight going on to prevent the SEC from applying this measure to the broad market. Admittedly with the exemption it is 50% gutted, but it still has some teeth. So no way can the powers that be allow, say, an OSTK to be protected like a Goldman is. No, OSTK can be naked shorted into the ground, yet again, after coming off the SHO list (I've noticed that the bad guys flush all the fails into ex-clearing to reset the 5 day clock on unlimited NSS they can get away with if the stock is off the list - and sure enough, OSTK drops off the list, and then a massive bear raid takes place, complete with massive put option sales from the protected market makers), because they don't matter. They aren't part of the club. You see, there are the few banks that matter, because they run everything, and then there is everyone else. We are the food. They are the predators. It's just formal now, and obvious. Double standard? You bet. Basis in law for it? None. Allowing an exemption when the SEC KNOWS FOR A FACT the exemption is being abused? Absolutely. Can't stop the gravy train. Or they will stop the game of musical chairs, and the whole thing collapses.
And meanwhile, the NY media, CNBC, the WSJ, the usual pack of hedge fund apologists ignore the meltdown and hypocrisy, and continue to repeat the mantra that bad companies go down, shorts are good for bones and teeth, and some bubble-head on CNBC knows better than the head of the SEC how the markets work, and what endangers them.
This doesn't end well.
Normally, I don't publish whole letters on this blog. This time, however, I think it's appropriate. As tired and sickened as I am by the speed with which the SEC backtracked and created an exemption for market makers in its emergency order, and by its selection of the banks that have been the prime offenders and facilitators in the naked short selling game as those too important to NOT have special protection from the practice, I'm still amazed by the arrogance of the hedge funds, and their position that violating delivery requirements is a God-given right for them.
Here's the letter. My comments are in blue.
July 21, 2008
CPIC and MFA URGE SEC CHAIRMAN COX NOT TO EXTEND EMERGENCY ORDER ON SHORT SELLING
Associations Say Fundamentals Caused Difficult Markets - Not Short Selling
WASHINGTON, D.C., July 21, 2008 -- The Coalition of Private Investment
Companies (CPIC) and Managed Funds Association (MFA) today sent a letter to SEC Chairman Christopher Cox urging the Commission to not extend the emergency order on short selling beyond the announced expiration date of 11:59 pm on July 29, 2008, or beyond the current list of designated
James S. Chanos, CPIC Chairman said, "We respectfully urge the Commission not to extend this Order in duration or scope. Such action would severely burden short selling activity, which the SEC itself repeatedly has acknowledged plays a vital role in the stability of securities markets.
No, Jim, sweetie, it actually wouldn't burden legitimate short selling where the seller borrowed the stock, as common sense and the rules require. It only places a burden on illegal naked short selling, where the seller has no intention of delivering the stock sold, thus any locate gotten is specious and designed to skirt timely delivery requirements.
And as to this oft-repeated claim that short selling plays a vital role in the stability of the securities market, where's the proof to support that claim? I mean, I know it behooves your short selling buddies to drive that claim home every chance you get, but where's the data showing that the markets can't exist without them? Others do. They function just fine, as the NCANS comment letter to the Reg SHO amendments from a year ago documents handily. So that claim is really nothing more than propaganda, designed to advance the interests of short sellers, isn't it? If not, prove it. Trot out the studies that prove the claim, or stop making it. Bet you can't. Because you can't explain away the markets where it isn't allowed, and where they function just fine. Bummer, that, huh? Oh, I know, just ignore that niggling detail, shall we? As to the SEC's repetition, that means less than nothing, as they repeated that SHO was working repeatedly, and that was shown to be a complete fabrication. Once a liar, always a liar, and the burden of proof shifts to the liar at that point. So prove it.
And why, precisely, will legal, legitimate short selling be burdened unfairly by the seller having to borrow the shares before he sells? Doesn't the buyer of those shares have to have the money at the time he buys? Or should we do the inverse for longs, and create phantom buying, where the buyer doesn't have to have any cash when he buys, but just has to claim his uncle Jim told him he could probably get the money to lend him? That's the equivalent. Fair is fair. Why should short sellers get that right, and not buyers?
"Restrictions on short sales distort the fundamentals that drive market prices and are, in the long run, counter-productive because they remove liquidity and healthy skepticism from the marketplace."
Again, prove it. And how does placing a borrow requirement on short sales remove healthy skepticism from the marketplace? Isn't it true that all it removes is the ability of arrogant super-rich criminal parasites to defraud the system by counterfeiting shares in a virtually unrestricted manner? Isn't the "liquidity" that is bandied about in this sense only the liquidity that is produced by the counterfeiting presses running 24/7? Why is that sort of liquidity good? Why is creating multiples of the legitimately-authorized and registered number of shares a good sort of liquidity, other than for brokers who make money off each trade, and criminal predators who use this ability to defraud and dilute, destroying the fair market for issues?
Richard H. Baker, MFA President and CEO, said, "While we recognize that the financial sector is undergoing an extraordinarily difficult period, we believe that these difficulties are the result of poor fundamental conditions and not a mysterious conspiracy or, more to the point, the inadequacy of current rules related to short selling.
Riiiiight. But that is your belief, not any sort of actual theory based upon evidence, right? And that belief is mainly based upon the input of many guys who are strongly suspected of being the largest criminal abusers and market manipulators, correct? So the "blame the victim" rap you use every time this cartel takes down a victim really is just an excuse, not an explanation, right? Just as, "I don't know how that crack got in my pocket" or "I was just holding it for a friend" is an excuse used by drug dealers, but shouldn't be confused with anything supported by data?
As to mysterious conspiracies, no mystery about it. The prime brokers have allowed hedge funds like your members to sell stock they don't own and haven't borrowed, in order to destroy companies. They do it for profit. See? No mystery at all. None. Money drives the behavior, and they like making hundreds of billions per year, rather than having to compete fairly, and be lucky to generate 12% returns. The current rules are a sham, created and castrated by attorneys at the SEC who all wind up working for Wall Street lawfirms who pay them gazillions for their supplicant behavior while at the SEC. Again, no mystery, money drives it.
Isn't it just another replay of the Pecora hearings, where the then chairman of the NYSE warned that ANY regulation would destroy the "perfect" system then in place? You know, Dick Whitney, who shortly thereafter was convicted of fraud and embezzlement, and did five to ten in Sing Sing? Aren't cries against sensible regulation here exactly the same sort of self-serving drivel? What has changed in 70+ years? Exactly, what has changed? Enormously wealthy scumbags will do anything for more money, and while pretending to be honorable, will break every law and rule imaginable if allowed. The Pecora hearings proved that. It isn't theory. So what's changed about human nature in those few generations? Would "nothing" be a pretty good descriptor?
The Commission's action here stands in stark contrast to its actions to protect retail investors from abusive short selling practices through the adoption of Regulation SHO, which was subject to extensive notice and comment. Short selling is a legitimate and valuable trading strategy as well as a vital component of providing price discovery and promoting efficient markets."
Yeah, Reg SHO, with its mountain of loopholes carefully crafted by your members, and included as part of that offensive and impotent rule, is certainly your kind of regulation, no? It doesn't work. There are more fails than ever, in dollars and in numbers. Why cite a rule that didn't work as an example of what you want the SEC to do? I mean, ignore for a moment that the problem is now bigger than ever before, and threatens to collapse the entire system. You stance is, "Why can't we just keep using the tool that doesn't work, rather than something that stands a chance?" Pardon me if I'm not awed at your powers of reasoning. You're both either incredibly dim, or incredibly crooked. Choose whichever shoe best fits, in your view.
Basically, the SEC repeated over and over again that naked short selling isn't a big problem, and really is just an issue at the margins. A fringe issue, a technical thing hardly worth worrying about. So if that's true, why do you care? If everyone is basically behaving, and borrowing and delivering, why is any such rule a threat? Why will it impact the market so profoundly? Why do market makers need an exception to the rule if it's such a trivial issue? The answer is that it isn't small. That was also a falsehood. It is now much of the market. Your parasitic membership has managed to create a multi-trillion dollar industry, in many cases by draining that money from the market, and leaving nothing to show for it - no delivered shares, nothing.
Every other business on the planet, it's called fraud. Here, the fraudsters write comment letters and sway legislation, and run the regulators and elected officials. "Greed is good" has become "Fraud is good." And now, because the contra-parties to the millions and millions and millions of fraudulently created markers floating in the system couldn't deliver on their commitment if they wanted to, we face the equivalent of financial nuclear winter. But you want everyone to just let the band play on.
Because having to deliver what you sold would crimp a really good business model - counterfeiting, theft and fraud.
The prospect of actually having to do what good short sellers, or rather legal ones, actually do, which is borrow the shares and then deliver them, terrifies you, because your members have gotten wildly rich by not complying with any fair market rules. And now, having to deliver on just these 17 stocks is going to cost them a fortune. If you actually extend it to the whole market, which absolutely must happen to avoid financial Armageddon, they will have a much more difficult time making a fortune. It's way easier if you can just steal the money. Having to work for it sucks.
The CPIC and MFA letter is posted on MFA's web site at www.managedfunds.org
CPIC is a coalition of private investment companies whose members and
associates are diverse in both size and investment strategies managing or
advising an aggregate of over $100 billion in assets."
The real question now is whether these arrogant parasites are going to be allowed to confuse illegal naked short selling, i.e. failing to deliver the share sold at T+3, with legal short selling, which is where borrowed shares are delivered. This letter isn't an appeal for legal short selling, it is an appeal for confusing illegal delivery failure as a trading strategy, with legitimate short selling. The question is whether there is anyone these days who is so stupid that they don't know the difference. Obviously, Chanos and Baker believe we are all idiots, and that we can't make the distinction. This is particularly unctuous now, as even the mainstream understands it. For crying out loud, even Cramer has seen the writing on the wall and is pretending that he has been part of Patrick's movement for years.
Best of luck with that, guys. Party's over. Or if not, it will be for good shortly after you are all allowed to continue what has brought us to the edge of the precipice.
wake up America
Help clear a few things for me.
1. Is this still in the talking stage?
2. If set to start, when is start date?
3. Is this for all USA markets and all stocks?
4. In your opinion, will this really actually stop NSS?
5. If the NSS seller is or was in a foreign country, would the SEC have any recourse to collect for the NSS?
just a reminder ..
Some of Cox's Preliminary Plans Are Out 1-Aug-08 06:33 am SEC Preliminary Guidelines of Naked Short and Fail-To-Deliver Reform(condensed highlights in rough draft form)
DTCC & NSCC Federal order to open their books via DOJ, ICC, and SEC
To protect the privacy and practices of current trading strategies, a new regulation (Regulation FTD) will be mandated to provide a daily list indicating all open fails on every security where one exists in the marketplace. The total of fails shall be updated daily on each security. No equity or derivative shall allow any borrow from any entity until all current and past fails are eradicated.
Immediate buy in on all current and existing fails out side of 13 days. Current fails have up to the mandated 13 days per Regulation SHO to "buy-in" and be covered.
Going back to introduction of SHO, any fails never bought in and covered will be "busted" and accounts disgorged with fines. Current fails listed on the Regulation SHO list outside of 13 days will be bought back in at market effective immediately.
All fails since the introduction of Regulation SHO will be reposited to every broker-dealer, market maker, hedge fund, and individual account as a short sale by cusip replication on a journal basis for the extent of time they were in fail status. No actual trade will occur. The fail will remain in the account affected for the entire time the position was in fail status. The position must be covered in such time or shall be "bought in" by the SEC and DOJ. Example: If the fail occurred exactly 3 years ago, it will remain in the client account for three years.
No additional short position shall be allowed on any particular security or derivative in which a journal entry exists or a current fail is open until that position is either bought in by the party involved or by the deadline of the fail period noted.
Any party affected with a particular fail can and may buy in to cover the open ledger entry fail at any time before the end of the period of original fail.
When fails are recovered on the open market, subsequent journal entries will be made affecting every equity or derivative to retire those securities from circulation and return those companies affected back to their exact oustanding and authorized shares.
By way of example, if the market maker SBSH or NITE or UBSS has net fails of 1.2 trillion shares over the past 3 years since the introduction of SHO, then those parties that traded those shares in net fail status shall have 1.2 trillion shares placed back in their account net short. They may not execute a short on that particular security at any time until the exisiting fail is covered by an order to buy on the open market. Each market maker will take the proper measures necessary to clear the fails recorded and report the transactions accordingly to their corresponding broker dealers. In finality, each broker dealer has 24 hours to accurately report the journal entries and "buy to covers" to their associated client accounts. No individual client may affect the buy-in on their own. The transaction must come at the broker-dealer level as prescribed by the commission.
so he is surely feeling
at home on ihub
u mean BET .. you BET
amrca, is this a good stock? TIA
You are solely responsible for your own investment or trading decisions, nobody else.
Peter O'Reilly: 9%
FMR Corp. & Fidelity International: 3.4%
Dear Admin Geek Dave,
leave Howard alone or I shall have to come over there and bite you.
what i find so *interesting*
is the education of
how systems work .. on all
like i've said repeatedly
the simpletons who don't
think both sides are well
represented on stock msg
blogs .. <pro and con>
due to the money that is
*generated* are *deluded*
and that is being polite
Yes, it works. It is a PDF file...
Interesting stuff too...
It kind of blows the large holes in the statements by various admins here who say - We run a totally unbiased information board and have no personal interest in the success or failure of the stocks being discussed.
it would appear that a certain person feels he is exempt from his own companies TOU rules
Barclays owns almost 18% of this company and Fidelity owns about 5%.
Check out all file folders for more info...
dont click on it cut and paste the who thing including the lastr few characters
I was told but my memory sucks. I heard this quite a while ago.
You got a name of this hedge fund? Who runs the hedge fund? Name please?
So far, sounds like the typical "a little birde told me this" type stuff...
that link is unavailable
use the whole link .. the last digits somehow got seperated
What hedge fund is that?
ADVFN PLC, the owner of IHUB are both owned by a Hedge fund.
I just had a look
the other board (silicon) has no acutal conversations about the b-stock
do you have any link??