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.
Janice, then please explain how a dividend is distributed to a stock with a short position?
When a stock is trading with shorts in the float, you have more shares in the float than are issued by the company. Clearly, simply because the T/A distributes the stock to all shareholders of record, doesn't mean there aren't shortfalls.
The shorts themselves need to cover the dividend in addition to the shorted share, which isn't a problem for them if a large amount of stock is held in streetname. They can just post a marker in the person's account. In the case of someone who owns shorted shares, that electronic marker represents an IOU.
Only if they are using it as a benchmark compared to something like the CIM dividend. Without that, you'll only have 1 part of the equation.
We can put this to bed.
In any case, CMKX was NEVER on the SHO list, for obvious reasons.
CMKX never qualified for SHO.
Taken from NASAA conference transcript...
One thing, let me make a comment. We have a rule that just has been posted for comment NEW 3210, NASD 3210, which expands Reg SHO to the non-filing OTC companies.
-Anand Ramtahal, Vice President, Market Member of Firm Regulation, NYSE
11/30/05
No
So you're saying the TA issued more CIM stock than actually existed?
I'm saying putting an electronic marker in someone's account does not mean they actually own that share. If all the stock the T/A ever issued was "it", then we wouldn't have an SHO list...would we?
I'll agree to disagree on that letter. It's a glass, 1/2 empty or 1/2 full.
As an electronic marker.
Everyone got his CIM divvy.
Maybe I should.
They were long sales, not short sales. Maybe you should read that letter again.
Doesn't really matter though. The bigger picture behind that letter clearly shows a complete "wild west" in terms of how market makers operate down here.
Right
Urbie's massive dilution of CMKX happened between March 2004 and September or October 2004.
And I'm saying the shorts jumped onboard (like they always do) and assisted the dump. And not all of that volume on the offer was real shares being transacted. When a stock like CMKX appears on the radar, it's like vultures circling a wounded animal. Some got carried away.
Did they cover by April? Well, we don't know. All we know is there was no NSS anymore. June to April is enough time for someone to get excess shares off the market and get under the threshold.
That is why CIM is so important. It logged the total amount of shares in the market place...long + short + nss.
We have useless data after April 05. The interesting stuff happened way before that.
I know Gump, it was rhetorical.
That is obvious.
fnord, spare me the song and dance.
there were no firms making a market in CMKX stock. The stock traded on an unsolicited quote basis, and all trades consisted of matched retail buys and sells.
That's like saying, "Hey! You can't short pennystocks because they're not marginable securities!" LOL, OK.
No MM had filed a 15-c-2-11, allowing "him" to make a market in the stock, and others to piggyback on him. Under those circumstances it is all but impossible to have a "naked short," as retail brokers won't tolerate a fail to deliver in a retail customer's account and can, using established NSCC proceedures, cure a fail and force delivery within a few days.
Since when does anyone follow "rules" in pennyland? In fact, since when does anyone follow rules in the stock market period? Would we even have an SHO list if anyone did? And you expect me to believe the "yada" you posted above? C'mon now.
As to the NASDAQ bubble, yep, a lot of market cap was lost from the peak of 18 trillion. However, a lot of that market cap was hypothetical.
Huh? You're saying that $18T that was bought and owned with real money, but didn't exist? Or are you just trying to justify the bear raids on companies with "extravagant" P/E ratios? Be honest now.
MM's no doubt made use of their exemption from locate requirements on the sell side, and their exemption from delivery requirements-allowed at the time. However, they also provided price support on the bid side, allowing people who wanted out to get out.
Greeeeat. Just another justification for "providing liquidity". That excuse is getting old. No thanks, I'd rather have large spreads and no fraud. How about you?
There are many, in fact, who argue that artificial constraints on short selling allowed the bubble to inflate. Many sell side firms saw it early on, took short positions, and got mauled when the dumb money kept piling into the market.
No. What happened is these clowns didn't anticipate the amount of longside capital that would flow into the markets after the advent of "online trading". So many of these clowns got stuck on "old principles of valuation" and got served when the market decided to value companies at 10x what they used to be.
VALUATION IS SUBJECTIVE.
If shorting became too risky in the late 90s, then they should've went long instead of short. Don't create shares out of thin air simply because you felt a stock was overvalued and couldn't borrow enough to try to correct your poor decision.
Don't give me the BS excuse that "dumb money" deserved to get their pockets reamed because a few guys on Wall St. couldn't keep up with the times.
There were NO Palm shares available to short after its much hyped IPO, allowing a mispricing of Palm against 3COM to persist for months due to the inability to arbitrage the price relationship to the proper levels.
Again, you have the classic shortseller approach to this. You think you are the "almighty" when it comes to valuing things. Problem is, you're not. The market changed and you couldn't keep up.
Let supply and demand determine value, not you.
Were they represented as volume to the public? Don't think so. I call that missing volume...what do you call it? I thought in order for a "game" to be fair, both sides have to have access to the same data, no? Ex-clearing is how they hide their activity.
The Jeffries stock didn't "go missing"; the trades, which were long sales, were settled.
The fact that they settled eventually is of no consequence. When did they settle? T+3? Doesn't sound like it. Aren't you supposed to locate before you sell short?
Shorting penny stocks is incredibly risky. They can run at any time, and they can run big.
Right, which is why naked shorting is used to counter that incredible upside risk. Without NSS, you really couldn't even short microcaps...that's why it's the "strategy du jour" for the off-shore hedgies that build their models around microcap shortselling.
Getting caught short when a stock shoots up 20 times is an extremely painful experience, I should think. There are better ways to make money.
WHAT???? When you have the SEC and media in your pocket and an impenetrable cloak over trading data (aka. THE DTCC), in addition to ZERO short interest reporting and MM shortselling exemptions at your disposal, I would think shorting microcaps is quite a lucrative business...well, until now at least.
Right, and I'm talking about trading activity during the Summer of 04 till April 05. That is when the NSS would have occurred, during the peak of the pump...from 0012 down to sub 0001. From April onward, the data is useless.
What?
Let's see how much CIM was distributed via electronic marker vs. issued CMKX...that's the data I'd like to see.
Right, but you're saying that none of the firms making a market in this incredibly liquid stock decided to take advantage of their exemption and short it at $0.0012?
It's really easier just to issue an endless amount of stock.
Sure it is, but to think nobody sold a single share short during this pump is insane. CMKX was an MM's feast...perhaps some of them got a little carried away?
Heck, 100B went "missing" for a period of months, no big deal...and that was just one firm.
No...there was 9 months in between that and the peak of the pump.
So since the end of April and the time of the finality notice CMKX somehow acquired a trillion share short position?
Let's see if the dums dums ever decide to pull their ace...ie. the CIM divvy. That holds the answer to everyone's question.
So you're saying not a single share was sold short?
It dropped on massive dilution, not shorting.
?
Hmmm...born today and all of a sudden he's got everything figured out?? LOL
Dunno...I haven't read his posts (besides what you guys posted here).
you certainly wouldn't WANT people to think you're oldblue, would you?
I take it he got a spanking from the admins??
fnord...what was the combined market capitalization of the Nasdaq in March of 2000 when it peaked in the 5000 range?
Then subtract that from it's low in September of 2002 when it bottomed at 1200...76% erosion of market value. Where did it all go?
Even if just a small fraction of that was naked shorting, you can quickly see how trillions of dollars in counterfeit (FTD) shares could be circulating in our system.
If the problem isn't as big as all of you shortpumpers seem to think, why doesn't the DTCC just show the world it's records? It could have wiped out all the "conspiracy theories" in one swoop by simply opening it's books and revealing the total # of FTDs, what the value was when they were first sold and what the value of those open positions is today.
It seems this would be every company's right to see it's trading records, but you gotta "sue" the DTCC to get it. Why so secretive?
"this" = Fingering me as oldblue
I am not oldblue. He thought I was, and I simply stated so did you.
Yes she does, but not on this.
Janice has a long history of being right.
C'mon now...
No.
Then what is?
greg, Janice seemed to think so also, but I really haven't a clue who this old blue character is. Just because I saw the word "shortpumper" somewhere else and decided to use it, makes me "oldblue"? LOL
Gimme a break dude.
Gump, the problem is worse on the ECNs...
monumental debate now at the NYSE to go entirly electronic and eliminate the trading floor. At least if it happens it will also be the death knell to those filthy rotten despicable market makers.
It basically allows anyone with a "pass" to act like a market maker, anonymously, to the trading system. Without modification to current shortselling exemptions, it won't matter if there is a floor or not. If anything, the ECNs give the manipulators greater leverage and more anonymity. Shorty can simply morph into another form through the ECN. This is bad news.
The only brightside in all this is the NASD finally taking steps to amend 3360 and mandate shortsale interest disclosure to OTC/PK stocks. Let's see how many market makers comment on this rule change...lol.
There is still plenty of work to be done before the markets can even be considered safe. Remember what that lady from the DTCC said at the end of the NASAA conference?
How about market maker shortsale exemptions?
Unfortunately the SEC isn't moving against toxic financiers and floorless PIPES deals.
Isn't that the real problem here? Without those exemptions, the problem wouldn't even exist. Yeah, we'd have less "liquidity", but I think I'd rather have larger spreads, than trillions of dollars in counterfeit "goop" floating around our markets.
This is where the true problem lies and you know it. The hedgefunds and PIPEers are merely opportunists in a broken system.
I know that...
It's Urbie who printed the shares.
But that doesn't mean there wasn't manipulation here. I wonder if there is enough CIM to go around...eh?
Blame him.
I do. I always maintained from the start that I care not for Urban, CMKX or anything else involving this company. There is a much larger underlying issue here, beyond a couple hillbilly stockpromoters.
A commitment does not entitle ownership.
They already own the shaes they are shorting against.
Not sure what you're talking about, but the PIPEs I'm talking about do not convert until a specified date in the future. This is a common practice, whereby "Fund A" will loan $X to "Company A" bearing interest and a backed by a convertible note that covers the "Fund" against default, should the "Company" fail to meet it's interest payments or payoff the loan in time.
This is what you shortpumpers deem "toxic financing". You say this is perfectly "legal" to short against. Problem is, you have to BORROW FIRST, before you can sell short. You must PHYSICALLY DELIVER a share, not a "clause in a fucking contract", get it?
Gee, does the NASD finally see a problem? But wait, all you shortpumpers say there is nothing wrong! There are no shortselling manipulation schemes out there. It's all the SCAMMERS' fault!
The NASD must be wrong...ay? LOL
----
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (Release No. 34-52679; File No. SR-NASD-2005-112)
October 26, 2005
Self-Regulatory Organizations; National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc.; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change Relating to Amendments to Rule 3360 to Expand Short Interest Reporting to OTC Equity Securities
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 20, 2005, the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (“NASD”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by NASD. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change
NASD is proposing to amend Rule 3360 to expand the short interest reporting requirements to over-the-counter (“OTC”) equity securities. Below is the text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is underlined; proposed deletions are in brackets.
* * * * *
3360. Short-Interest Reporting (a) Each member shall maintain a record of total "short" positions in all customer and proprietary firm accounts in OTC Equity Securities, securities included in The Nasdaq Stock Market, and in each other security listed on a registered national securities exchange and not otherwise reported to another self-regulatory organization and shall regularly report such information to NASD in such a manner as may be prescribed by NASD. [For the purposes of this rule, the term "customer" includes a broker/dealer.] Reports shall be made as of the close of the settlement date designated by NASD. Reports shall be received by NASD no later than the second business day after the reporting settlement date designated by NASD.
(b) For purposes of this Rule[,]:
(1) "short" positions to be reported are those resulting from "short sales" as that term is defined in SEC Rule 200 of Regulation SHO, with the exception of positions that meet the requirements of Subsections (e)(1), (6), (7), (8), and (10) of SEC Rule 10a-1 adopted under the Act[.];
(2) the term "customer" includes a broker-dealer; and (3) the term “OTC Equity Securities” shall mean any equity security that is not listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market or a national securities exchange.
* * * * *
II. Self-Regulatory Organization’s Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change
In its filing with the Commission, NASD 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. NASD 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
NASD is proposing to amend Rule 3360, Short-Interest Reporting, to require that members maintain and report on a monthly basis total short positions in OTC equity securities in all customer and proprietary firm accounts. Currently, Rule 3360(a) requires members to maintain a record of total short positions4 in all customer5 and proprietary firm accounts in Nasdaq securities (and listed securities if not reported to another self-regulatory organization (“SRO”)) and requires members to report such information to NASD on a monthly basis. NASD believes that expanding the monthly short interest reporting requirements to OTC equity securities will increase the information available to public investors and other interested parties related to trading in OTC equity securities. Accordingly, NASD proposes to amend Rule 3360(a) to require that members maintain and report to NASD short sale positions for OTC equity securities. For purposes of the proposed rule change, OTC equity securities would be defined as any equity security that is not listed on The Nasdaq Stock Market or a national securities exchange.
NASD will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval. In recognition of the technological and systems changes the proposed rule change may require, the effective date will be 90 days following publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission approval.
2. Statutory Basis NASD believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,6 which requires, among other things, that NASD rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. NASD believes that the proposed rule change will increase the information available to public investors and other interested parties related to trading in OTC equity securities.
B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition NASD does not believe that the proposed rule change will 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 self-regulatory organization 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
The Commission notes that the NASD is proposing an implementation period for proposed NASD Rule 3360. Specifically, the Commission notes that the NASD is proposing that it will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a Notice to Members to be published no later than 60 days following Commission approval and that the effective date of the proposed rule change will be 90 days following publication of the Notice to Members announcing Commission approval. The Commission specifically requests comment regarding whether this implementation period could be shorter.
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. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Electronic Comments:
• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-NASD-2005-112 on the subject line.
Paper Comments:
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549-9303.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASD-2005-112. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). 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, 100 F Street, NE, Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of NASD. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to the File Number SR-NASD-2005-112 and should be submitted on or before [insert date 21 days from publication in the Federal Register].
For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz Secretary
Let's see what all the market makers have to say!
Not always
Toxic financiers who short against toxic paper aren't shorting naked because they HAVE the paper, usually in the form of preferred or 144 stock.
Sedona had insisted on a "no shorting" clause in the financing agreement. Badian and Rhino violated that.
Yes, and you think Badian is the only one that has "violated" agreements? LOL!
They're all "POS" companies anyways, right? Isn't this the justification that all the shortpumpers use?
Anyways, the NASD has finally stepped up to the plate and proposed a rule change to "Expand Short Interest Reporting to OTC Equity Securities."
This is a major first step in the right direction (finally).
That would be the latter
Or get that nasty nekkied shorter, the ones that destroy all these gems of diluting POS!!!!!!!!!!
You said it, not me.
Figures. Got nothin to say...ay?
Just for you buddy.
How about the bogus "counterfeit share" scheme?
SEC Probes Research Tied To Naked Shorting: Report
Portfolio Media, New York (November 21, 2005)--The Securities and Exchange Commission is investigating a financial research firm over allegations it conspired with a hedge fund to drive down the share prices of online retailer Overstock.com, according to a published report. The Salt Lake Tribune said it had obtained documents showing inquiries have been under way since at least October 6, when three former employees of the financial research firm Gradient Analytics Inc. were questioned by San Francisco SEC officers. In letters dated October 11, Mark Fickes, an attorney with the SEC's Division of Enforcement, acknowledges the cooperation of ex- Gradient employees Daryl Smith, Demetrios Anifantis and Robert Ballash and provides a case number for the probe.
Included is a document advising them of their rights as witnesses in possible enforcement proceedings, the newspaper reported. The SEC’s investigation comes in the wake of a lawsuit brought by Overstock.com and one of its shareholders against Rocker Partners; its two top executives, David Rocker and Marc Cohodes; and Gradient Analytics, along with its two founders. In the lawsuit, Overstock alleges that the defendants “orchestrated a wide-scale predatory campaign of knowingly distributing false, and covertly biased, written reports about Overstock in order to disparage Overstock and enrich themselves.”
Overstock.com claims that beginning in June 2003, Gradient published nearly 60 negative reviews about the Utah company. Although claiming independence, Gradient's reports were made with Rocker officials' input, Overstock.com alleged. During the period of the negative reports, short selling of Overstock.com shares accelerated. Share prices slid from a high of $77.18 in January 2005 to the $40-$50 range in recent weeks.
Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne has launched a crusade against so-called “naked short selling”. In short selling, which is legal, traders sell stock they don't own but borrow.
They wait for the share price to go down, and then return the loan and pocket the difference. Illegal "naked shorting," on the other hand, involves selling stock traders haven’t actually borrowed in order to harm public companies. Both Gradient and Rocker have denied all allegations. On Tuesday, Gradient filed a motion seeking the dismissal of Overstock's suit on grounds that the Utah company was seeking to suppress its critical reviews. Gradient said its research reports criticizing Overstock.com were based on independent research that the firm believed to be accurate, Gradient said in a filing in state court in Marin County, Calif.
Gradient denied Overstock.com's claims that it worked with hedge fund Rocker Partners LLP on reports aimed at pushing down Overstock.com's shares and delayed publication so Rocker could adjust its positions in the stock. "Rocker never provided or offered inducements to Gradient to compromise Gradient's exercise of independent judgment," Gradient said in the filing. "No matter how objectionable or controversial, Gradient's opinions cannot be the basis of a libel claim." "Overstock's efforts here are part of a much broader war on Gradient, which is being waged in the press and in regulators' offices, as well as in this court," Gradient's countersuit stated. "Overstock seeks to deliver the clear message - to Gradient and all others - that criticism of Overstock will not go unpunished." Gradient, for its part, insists it has “no direct knowledge of any SEC inquiry that may be under way. . . . Should the SEC choose to contact the company, Gradient looks forward to . . . getting to the bottom of the false accusations that have been circulated by Overstock.com,” according to a recent statement.
-------------------
Keep soaking your head in your arrogance.
Yawn x2
It is too bad you had to wait until all your money was lost, though.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz
BTW, you never answered the question in my last response to you.
Did someone fart? Or was that your brain?
Panther, buddy...you seem to think I bet the farm on this or something. What you don't get is I don't care about CMKX, it represented around 5% of my portolio. It was a hand of blackjack.
And I don't care enough about your question to be bothered with a response. Get it?
Put me on ignore or something.
bullshi*
The price is tanked by the dilution agreed to by management, not any mythical naked shorting.
In legit shorting, You borrow FIRST, then sell short. Those that hedge against PIPEs sell "naked" first, then cover later. This is the game. Without SHO and short interest disclosure for OTC stocks, the hedgers could short all they want and not have to borrow for months or years. By that time the company is dead from an inflated float and flatlined stockprice. Then they exercise their contract and legitamize the short with the converted shares.
You seem to think printing shares out of thin air FIRST, then covering months or years later is legal. LOL
Jim
Have you ever engaged in shortselling?
Be honest now. lol
LOLOL
USA Today quoting "Hartley Bernstein, of StockPatrol.com". That has to be the funniest thing I've seen in a while. Did they really think that would lend credibility to their story? Having a convicted felon who runs a hackjob site offer "commentary" in their piece?
HAHAHAHA, what a joke. I always thought USA Today was a waste of paper...this just proves it. I guess "you too" can hire them as a shortselling shill.
"...In May 1999, Mr. Bernstein, too, pleaded guilty to securities fraud..."
New York Times
How many haven't?
How many have been dismissed by now?
Are you really going to resort to excuses like that now? He's "chipping away at the armor" Janice. You know very well that he will get one through eventually and that's all it takes (I personally feel the OSTK case will be the one that finally breaks the dam wide open). He's been here before...albeit you folks are about 100 times more powerful than "big tobacco".
The only difference is it will just take a little longer, that's all.
O'Quinn is a junkyard pitbull that has caught your leg and will not let go.
You done f'ked up and pissed off the wrong people. Just got too greedy.
What is there not to understand?
and the author obviously didn't understand anything at all about toxic financing.
Toxic financing is simply shorting without borrowing, then covering when the company has flatlined thanks to the bear raid (see Andreas Badian's quote below). You make it seem like the promoters are really the ones "running" the shit. You're smarter than that.
Andreas ordered brokers to sell Sedona shares short with "unbridled levels of aggression." After the stock had "collapsed," according to the complaint, he congratulated the brokers on a "good job" and instructed them to be "merciless" in selling the stock a day later.
It's the perfect crime.
Yes!!!!
LOL, seriously, I don't care. If you haven't figured it out by now, I don't really care about CMKX.
I'm focusing on the bigger picture here.
So people don't short naked against PIPES?
Sorry, diamond, the Refco connection was the CD issuer
Afterall, the point of shortselling is to BORROW stock first, THEN sell it "short". Not, sell SHORT first, then borrow later. This is what you people just keep spinning as the real "boogeyman", when it is simply a component of naked short selling itself.
Were the shares delivered?
DID THEY BORROW FIRST?
Spare me the BS about "did they deliver". Anyone can cover if they have enough time. The point is: did they delivery in T+3?
CDs are only "toxic" when people like Badian sell unlimited amounts of shares right after the "pump", then flatline the company and cover "later". You want to talk about pump'n'dumps...the shorts are the ones that orchestrate them. The promoters are just part of the act.
Shortselling without borrowing is pure counterfeiting. This is what the CIM dividend "caught". It is a record of the amount of counterfeiting that took place in the summer of 2004. That is a priceless stat to have.