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.
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.
gadaymate (JUMBOJET), what I told you worked, didn't it? What's your new RB handle? TIA
Seems it doesn't matter whether or not certain securities are hard to borrow (from that "boring" RB board, LOL!):
By: ezaltheladiespa
30 Dec 2011, 08:42 AM CST
Rating: Rate this post: Msg. 1056533 of 1056543
TWO THINGS...Do you really think Credit Suisse securities is the only bank that has done this and do you really think that they didn't make more than $1.75 million dollars stealing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
AS USUAL THEY STEAL BILLIONS AND GET FINED MILLIONS...In concluding this settlement, Credit Suisse neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA's findings. (my bolding for emphasis)
ABSOLUTELY SHAMEFUL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINRA Fines Credit Suisse Securities $1.75 Million for Regulation SHO Violations and Supervisory Failures
Dec. 27, 2011, 10:18 a.m. EST
WASHINGTON, Dec 27, 2011 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) announced today that it has fined Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC $1.75 million for violating Regulation SHO (Reg SHO) and failing to properly supervise short sales of securities and marking of sale orders. As a result of these violations, Credit Suisse entered millions of short sale orders without reasonable grounds to believe that the securities could be borrowed and delivered and mismarked thousands of sales orders.
In a short sale, the seller sells a security it does not own. When it is time to deliver the security, the short seller either purchases or borrows the security in order to make the delivery. Reg SHO requires a broker or dealer to have reasonable grounds to believe that the security could be borrowed and available for delivery before accepting or effecting a short sale order. Requiring firms to obtain and document this "locate" information before the short sale is entered reduces the number of potential failures to deliver in equity securities. In addition, Reg SHO requires a broker or dealer to mark sales of equity securities as long or short.
Brad Bennett, FINRA Executive Vice President and Chief of Enforcement, said, "Credit Suisse's Reg SHO supervisory and compliance monitoring system was seriously flawed. Millions of short sale orders were being entered in its systems without locates for over four years because the firm did not have adequate Reg SHO technology and procedures in place."
FINRA found that from June 2006 through December 2010, Credit Suisse's Reg SHO supervisory system regarding locates and the marking of sale orders was flawed and resulted in a systemic supervisory failure that contributed to significant Reg SHO failures across its equities trading business. During the time period, Credit Suisse released millions of short sale orders to the market without locates, including threshold and hard to borrow securities. The locate violations extended to numerous trading systems, aggregation units and strategies. In addition, Credit Suisse mismarked tens of thousands of sale orders in its trading systems. The mismarked orders included short sales that were mismarked as "long," resulting in additional violations of Reg SHO's locate requirement.
As a result of its supervisory failures, many of Credit Suisse's violations were not detected or corrected by the firm until after FINRA's investigation caused Credit Suisse to conduct a substantive review of its systems and monitoring procedures for Reg SHO compliance. FINRA found that Credit Suisse's supervisory framework over its equities trading business was not reasonably designed to achieve compliance with the requirements of Reg SHO and other securities laws, rules and regulations throughout the period at least June 2006 through at least December 2010.
In concluding this settlement, Credit Suisse neither admitted nor denied the charges, but consented to the entry of FINRA's findings. (my bolding for emphasis)
FINRA's investigation was conducted by Jeanne Elmadany and Chun Li under the supervision of Susan Light, Chief Counsel.
Investors can obtain more information about, and the disciplinary record of, any FINRA-registered broker or brokerage firm by using FINRA's BrokerCheck. FINRA makes BrokerCheck available at no charge. In 2010, members of the public used this service to conduct 17.2 million reviews of broker or firm records. Investors can access BrokerCheck at http://www.finra.org/brokercheck or by calling (800) 289-9999. Investors may find copies of this disciplinary action as well as other disciplinary documents in FINRA's Disciplinary Actions Online database.
FINRA, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, is the largest independent regulator for all securities firms doing business in the United States. FINRA is dedicated to investor protection and market integrity through effective and efficient regulation and complementary compliance and technology-based services. FINRA touches virtually every aspect of the securities business - from registering and educating all industry participants to examining securities firms, writing rules, enforcing those rules and the federal securities laws, informing and educating the investing public, providing trade reporting and other industry utilities, and administering the largest dispute resolution forum for investors and firms. For more information, please visit www.finra.org .
SOURCE: Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA)
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/finra-fines-credit-suisse-securities-175-million-for-regulation-sho-violations-and-supervisory-failures-2011-12-27
Nufced, if the answers bore you so, don't ask the questions. Here's a question for you... Do individuals, such as Timothy Sykes, routinely short OTC stocks? I'd appreciate your non-boring answer to this question. TIA
Oh, JUMBOJET, you'll probably have to come back to RB as "gadaymate" or something like that since it may be impossible to re-register as JUMBOJET though. But, whatever handle you choose, we'll know who you are from your distinctive style. ;)
Sure, JUMBOJET! We'd love to have you back. Just get you a new free email address from hotmail, gmx, etc., and re-register using a different name (since you've never used your real one anyway). Simple as pie. No proxy server required. Try it!
Jonas is a vulgar, superficial moron quite frankly and has no meat in any of his posts. But, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know how to create a new email account and re-register. You make it sound so difficult. Why? You seem so analytical computer savvy about other things, yet you make Jonas sound like a computer hacker just because he knows how to get a new free email account? LOL!
Pedro2004, Kilroy's not banned from RB any more than Jonas is banned. LOL! BTW, Pedro, do you support Janice's contention that individuals don't short OTC stocks? Just curious.
Jarta, I NEVER said anything about CHICPICK, did I? How's Kelly Fulton doing BTW?
Well, you asked the question twice. Seems like if you wanted an answer you could at least just view a web page. Apparently, RB has gotten quite frightening to some, though. Oh well.
Nufced, just look at RB and it should be obvious. ;)
Nufced, again, there's been little or no TOS'ing on RB since August, so why don't the old regulars come on back? The board is more active than this one. I'm not putting this one down, just I thought most of them enjoyed the RB banter. At least they said they did (better than watching T.V., etc.).
Nufced, you make it sound like they work in concert. Or, are you saying they all coincidentally made the decision, after so many years within that small time window, that they were no longer deriving "entertainment value" from Raging Bill anymore. Sounds like a stretch to me, but to each their own. Sorry, I just can't buy it. Thanks anyway.
Nufced, BTW, what did ALL those CMKM naysayers do within that short window that violated RB's TOS? Are you saying they were TOS'd even though they were good posters playing by the rules? Just curious. TIA
Jonas, a computer guru? LOL! You're saying he's hacked into the site and can override a deletion of an account by a board moderator instantaneously? I don't think so. I'm rather good with computers myself, and I don't think it's possible. Thanks anyway.
Janice, you said that individuals don't short OTC stocks, only market makers. That doesn't appear to be true:
Interactive Brokers - I like to use the FTP text version of IB’s short stock list: Shortable Stocks FTP (when prompted for a password just hit enter or okay). The FTP link will show a large text file; use your browser’s search function to find a stock by name or ticker. An HTML version of the shortable stocks list is also available. Both show how many shares are available to short and what interest rate a trader must pay to borrow said shares. For example, the FTP link shows each stock on a line that looks like this: “AMEL|USD|Amerilithium Corp|73282418|US03077G1067|03077G106|-2.69|NA|NA|20000|”. The first entry is the ticker, the next the base currency, followed by name, two different identification numbers I’m not familiar with, the stock’s CUSIP, and then the indicative annual interest rate (positive numbers indicate a short sale rebate, in other words you get paid to hold the short position). The right-most entry is the number of shares available. The top line of the file indicates when the data were updated (ie, #BOF|2010.06.07|13:30:03) and the second line shows each column’s headers. So the line above indicates that as of 1:30pm EST on June 7, 2010 there were 20,000 AMEL to short at an annualized interest rate of 2.69%. The interest rate can change from day to day as the stock becomes more or less easily available to short.
If you log in to your account and go to “Tools > Short Stock Availability” you can see more detailed data on how many shares of a stock were available at different times. Interactive Brokers has detailed instructions on how to use this tool. I have also configured my Trader’s Workstation software to show the “Shortable” column. Below is a detailed video of how to do that. IB allows short selling stocks of any price (although short selling stocks under $2.50 requires more capital) and allows short selling of OTC BB and Pink Sheets stocks. Interactive Brokers does not allow for reserving shares to short; the first trader to get a short order filled gets the shares. Because Interactive Brokers’ system automatically searches for stock to borrow from various lenders and then displays how many shares are shortable, if it shows that there are no shares to short, placing an order to short is almost futile. You can place an order, which will cause the system to automatically look for more shares, but I have found that to almost never result in the system finding shares. The one benefit of placing an order is that TWS should notify you if you place a short order for which there are no shares and shares do later become available.
http://www.reapertrades.com/2009/09/how-to-borrow-shares-to-short/
Apparently Interactive Brokers allows it.
The 6 Best Online Discount Brokers For Short Selling Penny Stocks: A Comprehensive Guide
http://www.timothysykes.com/2011/05/the-6-best-online-discount-brokers-for-short-selling-penny-stocks-a-comprehensive-guide/
Nufced, RB's not booting ANYONE off the boards anymore. All TOS reports go without ramification now. If you don't believe me, post anything you want there and see if you get booted. So, that argument really doesn't hold water. Jonas_mmxciii has probably had 500 TOS reports for good reason (vulgarities), yet he's still there. Before August, those "bashing" got TOS'd frequently, but they'd return with a new name or a variation of the old one. But, that all changed in August. All the aforementioned "bashers" just disappeared for good apparently. Why did they all lose interest in RB at the same time? TIA
JUMBOJET, you have an inordinate amount of pent up animosity toward "scam victims" don't you? When are you going to get out from under that skirt and post on RB again? Why did you, TheCynic, reality.bytes, baloney_cleaver, and a host of others all get afraid of RB in August? Just curious. TIA
Goldbarren58, I take it by "Google the requirement" that you believe it to be legal, possible and done by some. However, I didn't ask you. I would like Janice's opinion on it. Thanks for the input though.
Janice, can an OTC stock be shorted? I mean I know there are greater collateral or margin requirements, but it is legal and done by some, isn't it?
Pantherj, as much if not more than deer or rats, that's for sure. When someone like Jonas spews vulgarities on the RB board 24/7 for 8 years, then says he's close with Janice, you just wonder why such a strange connection, that's all. Just curious. Is that bad?
Gdaymate, don't let it bother you too much.
Janice, what about jonas-mmxciii? Do you personally know him? Have you ever met him as he says? TIA
Janice, surely you can figure out what "Do/Did you know the poster using the RB alias "076658" and "07isback" means. So did you know him or not? Do you know Jonas or not. I'd prefer if you'd answer directly and not through your minions. They say he died in July '08, yet he posted a test message on RB in Oct. '08. Everyone on RB knew him personally, but you don't know who I'm talking about? TIA
I take it you mean "liars"?
So is he lying when he says he knows you personally?
Oh, Janice, I forgot to ask. There's a lot of "club" members stating that you guys knew 076658 (the RB handle) personally, and that he died in July of '08. Did you know him? Just curious if you knew him and what you thought about him. TIA
Janice, Jonas over on the RB board has stated several times that you are a "woman beyond reproach", and that he has visited with you in Pennsylvania. He also stated tonight that you assigned him to the Raging Bull board. Is that true? Just curious.
Should read, with his WIFE who is from India.
Janice, Judd Bagley caught Gary Weiss posting his pro-naked short selling propaganda from computers WITHIN the DTCC. He also posted on Raging Bull prolifically for quite a while using the alias "medchal", as in Medchal, India (he has traveled to India with his from, who is from India).
So, what's so hard to believe?
Any who believes that the pump-and-dump side of racketeering exists, but not the short-and-distort side is stupid. CMKX was some kind of scam, but there's too many unexplained things, such as why UC was not arrested and extradited or how, as GOB claims, that UC revoked an irrevocable trust, liquidated and absconded with the proceeds all while under the watchful eyes of American and Canadian enforcement.
BTW, Janice, here's a link regarding your grammar lesson:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disassociated
Mine's in the dictionary too with the exact same meaning, but nice try at finding some little error to nitpick while avoiding the gist. LOL!
Jarta, find just ONE post where I have mentioned any "settlement proceeds" you say I "post incessantly about". LOL!
BTW, here's the current scorecard as of today:
Hartley Bernstein = convicted (but now a nice guy, right?) LOL!
Anthony Elgindy = convicted (but now a nice guy, right?) LOL!
Sam Antar = convicted (but now a nice guy, right?) LOL!
Barry Minkow = convicted (but now a nice guy, right?) LOL!
Urban Casavant = NOT convicted (but lynch him now anyway, right?)
All I did was state that Edwards was the mastermind, yet all of the attention is on Urban Casavant. Why did John Edwards flee to Europe and get incarcerated there long ago, yet Urban sits at home for 5 years after revocation and given that long to dispose of his ill-gotten gains? FYI, a civil judgement against him does not equate to a criminal conviction.
Thanks for the spelling lesson. You probably know Gary Weiss. He's into spelling and grammar lessons, too. LOL!
No, I've never defended Urban. There's just a lot of inexplicable things going regarding this case, and until it's clear and he's found guilty in a court of law, I'm not judging him myself. But, I'll tell you my gut feeling is he's not lily-white in the matter by any stretch. However, since John Edwards was the mastermind, and you folks are so quick to point out that UC is a drunken gambler, I'd say there's a chance he was set up to be the fall guy. If he realized this at some point, he might have done something rash, such as cooperating with authorities in some fashion to get even with the mastermind who set him up.
Not saying it's the way it was, but until it's clear from the courts exactly what transpired, I'm not sure of anything. You'll notice the folks I mention have already been CONVICTED in a court of law.
BTW, I'm not obsessed with Elgindy, as I probably detest Barry Mindow more, since he posed as a preacher while fleecing. Anyone stealing the name of the Lord has front seat on the bus to hell IMHO. But, I don't like Sam Antar (also convicted market felon), Hartley Bernstein (also a market convict), or any other market convict who, once their original market crimes are made public (sentences served if any, etc.) re-emerge transformed into a "volunteer fraudbuster", when in actuality they are short-and-distort racketeers.
Why is the subject of short-and-distort racketeers such a sensitive subject on this board? The only reason I harped on Elgindy with you so much is that I found it odd that one stating they are out to expose market crimes would voluntarily aid the defense in trying to get such a market felon's sentence mitigated and you were aware he was convicted of such actions. Just found that to be a bit inordinate, that's all. I'm sure you have your reasons. LOL!
"The Commission today filed a civil injunctive action against fourteen defendants involved in the alleged illegal issuance and sale of unregistered stock of CMKM Diamonds, Inc., purportedly a diamond and gold mining company located in Las Vegas. With assistance from a transfer agent and an attorney, allegedly CMKM fraudulently issued hundreds of billions of shares of purportedly unrestricted stock to John Edwards, the scheme's mastermind,...
So why am I hearing all this "cyber-vigilantism" (lynch mob) talk all day long for years on end after revocation against Urban Casavant, yet nothing about the "mastermind" from so many folks claiming to have always been financially disassociated with the matter?
"the Edwards criminal case"
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nv/victim_witness/case_updates.html
It doesn't matter that some choose not to vote. It doesn't matter whether or not votes are solicited... you still have the right to vote and that your vote have the full power to which it is entitled... not diluted with more votes than permitted. It's just principally wrong to have the ability to cast more votes than have been issued. What if everyone did vote, and the total votes exceeded the O/S?
Plus, it's principally wrong to lead one to believe they have physical possession of something at a point in time, when in fact he does not have possession. If there were not a borrow of shares and those shares "locked" so that they could not be lent out again until repaid, then he does not have possession of anything but a promise to produce it at some point in time, which often exceeds the allowed clearing time.
I have a question for you. What is the difference between a pump-and-dump criminal and a short-and-distort criminal? It's funny how many who claim to have never had any financial involvement with some pinkie revoked years ago spend their entire days screaming "scam"! Yet, when it comes to the equally criminal short-and-distorters, these same people either go mute or even try to justify the second. I don't understand the bias regarding one side of market criminality fence versus the other.
Why would you have so little problem with what Anthony Elgindy, Sam Antar, Barry Minkow, et al.? Urban may be a slimeball (I am not a "cyber-vigilante", so I'll wait for a court to pronounce him guilty), but Barry Minkow? LOL! The guy posed as a reverend, took his church's donations for "God's work" and used those funds for his short-and-distort racketeering through his phony "Fraud Discovery Institute". But, no one seems to be as condemning about these guys.
BTW, doesn't the documents indicate enforcement refers to this as "The Edwards Case", and that he was the "mastermind"? I also read that it was Edwards, not UC, who controlled the ledger and all stock issuance. Yet you say UC issued them all. Which is right, you or the documents?
Abusive naked short selling is no big deal? LOL! It's just plain wrong from various aspects, such as not actually having possession at the time you are told you have physical possession and having more votes possible than there are actual outstanding shares. What do they do when they catch you voting for the president more than once? Let's say there are 300 million people in the USA of voting age, yet the election results show on TV that there were a total of 600 million votes cast. Do you think everyone would just say, "It's not big deal... just some liquidity thingy." ROFLMAO!
Pedro2004, I think you're the one with all the documentary evidence. Do you have a copy of any documents explaining what was in that UAJC irrevocable trust. I think it was GOB who stated that the irrevocable trust was revoked (how do you revoke something irrevocable?). But, of course, he made some ramblings which equated to "you try to find the evidence". Do you have evidence on regarding the contents and disposition of what was in that trust? TIA
So how would a "volunteer fraudbuster" like you know so confidently what the strategy is of shorters if you're not a part of it? Just curious?
Janice, you're proud of that Bernstein (or whoever) article calling you a "cyber-vigilante", aren't you? ROFLMAO! Since when did "vigilantism" become acceptable in the good ole USA? LOL!