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.
This is nice too...
charge in the complaint 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.
Remind me again who Badian was using to perform trades?
Here Janice...
I'll make it easy for you.
It turns out, plaintiff lawyers say, that Badian had been making some of his Sedona trades through Refco, which has acknowledged an SEC investigation.
Looking the other way while clients manipulated the shares of small companies through what's known as naked short selling appears to have been yet another questionable way of doing business at Refco.
In naked short selling, you execute the sale without borrowing the stock. The SEC noted in a report last year the "pervasiveness" of the practice.
When not caught, this kind of selling has no limits and allows a seller to drive down a stock.
"I have seen evidence that links Badian and/or Refco to more than 50 stocks that were driven into the ground," says Wes Christian, part of a legal team headed by billionaire Texas tobacco litigator John O'Quinn, who is amassing a case against Badian, other hedge funds and now possibly Refco.
Refco declined to comment.
LOLOL
Read their financials.
I did...and so did Time Magazine. They seem to agree with me.
Here's a link to the article in case you've missed it:
http://www.time.com/time/insidebiz/article/0,9171,1126706-1,00.html
<snicker>
LOL
out of the way of those who want to accomplish meaningful reform in the penny markets.
But that would take money out of your pocket? You Canadians make a lot of money naked shorting and doing it ex-clearing.
How's the weather up there...ey?
not getting enough sleep, eh?
I'd say you are more screwed than ever
Why such anger and frustration over a little pinksheet stock?
Even your silly NSS BS won't help you with this incestuous group.
Doesn't matter. CIM captured the naked short at it's peak. The dividend distrubtion of CIM is a record of just how much ex-clearing was going on. If for nothing else, that CIM divvy ratio is quite a valuable "asset" to have.
With all the news agencies slowly picking up the NSS scandal (that you people created), it's only a matter of time before some journalist wants to "feature" a stock with a short position in the trillions.
Like I said before...
I'll bet shorty ain't sleeping as well as he used to
Last I checked, this wasn't over. CMKX may be revoked, but Shatzko has the reigns now and this ain't over yet.
and clearly you don't recognize a scam when you see one
And clearly you have nothing better to do with your time than chase after one for 2+ years.
preferring to use the tiring NSS issue as a reason for bad DD
Counterfeiting is illegal, doesn't matter if it's a scam or not. If nothing else, CMKX succeeded in getting the NSS issue out in the open. With 60,000 people buying this stock, through word of mouth, NSS has become a household word to millions. Tie that in with what O'Brien, Patch and Byrne are doing on the newsfront and I'll bet shorty ain't sleeping as well as he used to.
Solid, what a goof you are.
It appears you are taking scamwire reports as fact.
O'Quinn is simply using a different fishing rod this time, but he's still looking to bag the same fish. The justice system in America is [unfortunately] too backwards to understand the mechanics of naked shortselling...especially when the DTCC keeps the evidence buried under a mountain.
RE: Shortside trades in OTC/PK stocks...
Clearly you don't know jackshit about market making. Get a clue.
Great. Good for her. *yawn*
Many of them thank her after the fact
How would you know? Are you an insider at Refco? You know with absolute certainty EVERYTHING that went on inside Refco? Gimme a break.
If you think they were shorting penny stocks, think again.
From their BK:
"...Securities sold, not yet purchased $10,590,379,000..."
The overwhelming majority of failed trades occur down here in pennyland. If you think that isn't the case, think again.
They were mostly into more sophisticated (and dangerous) financial instruments.
Right, like naked short selling in unregulated cesspool markets.
I believe you are mistaken.
I believe Shapiro's talking about toxic converts, not real naked shorting. A lot of people are confused about that.
I think the only one confused about that is you...
"...naked short selling has been a widespread practice and one which, when allowed to persist, can pose a threat to the integrity of equity markets..."
Where does it say anything about toxic paper?
The real evil is toxic paper. The whole NSS thing is just a distraction.
So you're saying Martha issued toxic paper? Is that why her company has counterfeit shares in circulation? Or how about Netflix? Or how about Overstock? Did they issue toxic paper too? If so, why are there failed trades in circulation? If it was all just toxic paper, then why can't that "paper" cover the short sales?
BTW, my 15 posts is up. See ya tomorra.
My dear, I think not.
I'm afraid Lambiase has been seduced by bad information.
Mr. Lambiase knows perfectly well what's going on and is not chasing ghosts here. Shorty is very real, need I say more than Refco?
Had to think about the response for a sec, eh?
If there aren't any fails, then there isn't any list.
Of course there is. It just says "0". But Frizzy hasn't been given that either. All he gets from the SEC and the rest of the "borkers" is a cold shoulder...boohoo.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about you.
Lame....
You're right.
The arguments and explanations of the Get Shorty campaigners do not.
Shapiro is full of crap and his incredibly detailed and ACCURATE rebutal to Thompson's "smokescreen" made no sense whatsoever.
------------------
April 13, 2005
Jill M. Considine
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation
55 Water Street
New York, New York 10041-0099
cc: Stuart Z. Goldstein, Managing Director, Corporate Communications
Larry Thompson, Managing Director and Deputy General Counsel
Dear Ms. Considine:
I am Robert J. Shapiro, chairman of Sonecon LLC, a private economic advisory firm in Washington, D.C. I served as U.S. Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs from 1998 to 2001, Vice President and co-founder of the Progressive Policy Institute from 1989 to 1998, and principal economic advisor to Governor William J. Clinton in the 1991-1992 presidential campaign. I hold a Ph.D. from Harvard University and have been a Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Harvard University, and the Brookings Institution. I currently provide economic analysis to the law firms of O’Quinn, Laminack and Pirtle, Christian, Smith and Jewell, and Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel and Greenwood, on issues associated with naked short sales, including matters raised in an interview published by @DTCC with DTCC deputy general counsel Larry Thompson. Certain comments by Mr. Thompson in that interview were inaccurate or misleading, and I request that you allow me to correct the record by publishing this response.
Mr. Thompson begins by asserting that “the extent to which [naked short selling] occurs is in dispute.” While this statement may be narrowly correct, objective academic analysis has established that naked short selling has been a widespread practice and one which, when allowed to persist, can pose a threat to the integrity of equity markets. A recent study by Dr. Leslie Boni, then a visiting financial economist at the SEC, analyzed NSCC data and found that on three random days, an average of more than 700 listed stocks had failures-to-deliver of 60 million-to-120 million shares sold short – naked shorts – that had persisted for at least two months. In addition, over 800 unlisted stocks on any day had fails of 120 million-to-180 million shares sold short that also had persisted for at least two months. The total number of naked shorts, including those that had persisted for less than two months, was presumably considerably greater.
Regarding the extent of naked shorts, Mr. Thompson has provided closely-related additional information: “fails to deliver and receive amount to about $6 billion daily…including both new fails and aged fails.” Mr. Thompson minimizes this total by comparing it to “just under $400 billion in trades (emphasis added) processed daily by NSCC, or about 1.5% of the dollar volume.” By most people’s standards, a problem involving hundreds of millions of shares valued at $6 billion every day is a very large problem. Moreover, the $6 billion total substantially underestimates the actual value of all failed-to-deliver trades measured when the trades actually occurred. Most of the $6 billion total represents uncovered or naked short sales, many of which have gone undelivered for weeks or months with their market price being marked-to-market every day. As a stock’s price falls, the market price of naked shorts in that stock also declines, reducing the total value of the outstanding failures-to-deliver cited by Mr. Thompson.
In other respects, Mr. Thompson’s comparison to the “$400 billion in trades processed daily by NSCC” seems disingenuous and misleading, because that $400 billion total covers not only U.S. equity trades which can involve most of the failures-to-deliver at issue, but many other transactions also processed by the NSCC. The value of all equity transactions on U.S. markets in 2004, for example, averaged $82.3 billion/day. If Mr. Thompson is correct that the daily value of fails-to-deliver averages $6 billion, that total is equivalent to 7.2 percent of average daily equity trades or nearly five times the 1.5 percent level suggested by Mr. Thompson. Furthermore, the DTCC reports on its website that on a peak day, “through its Continuous Net Settlement (CNS) system, NSCC eliminated the need to settle 96 percent of total obligations.” Assuming that CNS nets out the same proportion of trades on other days, $384 billion of the $400 billion in daily trades cited by Mr. Thompson are netted out, leaving only $16 billion in daily trades that require the actual delivery of securities. The $6 billion of fails-to-deliver securities existing on any day are equivalent to 37.5 percent of the average daily trades that require the delivery of securities, or 25 times the 1.5 percent level cited by Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson tries to explain the large numbers of shares that go undelivered – in most cases arising from naked short sales -- by citing problems with paper certificates, inevitable human error, and the legitimate operations of market makers. This also seems misleading or disingenuous. Regarding problems with paper certificates, the DTCC estimates that 97 percent of all stock certificates are now kept in electronic form. Nor can human error or legitimate market-making operations explain the high levels of failures-to-deliver that persist for months – on any day, an average of 180 million-to-300 million shares have gone undelivered for two months or longer – as documented by Dr. Boni’s analysis of NSCC data.
Mr. Thompson also disparages the attorneys who represent companies that have been damaged or destroyed by massive naked short sales, and their shareholders, by claiming falsely that the cases in this matter have almost all been dismissed or withdrawn. The legal firms that I advise -- O’Quinn, Petrie and Laminack; Christian, Smith and Jewell; and Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel and Greenwood – have not lost any motions against the DTCC or its affiliates and currently have one case against the DTCC pending in Nevada and another case against the DTCC pending in Arkansas. In addition, on February 24, 2005, these attorneys were granted an order by the New York Supreme Court ordering the DTCC to produce trading records involving two companies they represent, including records from the Stock Borrow program, which may establish whether large-scale naked short sales were used to manipulate and drive down the stock price of those two companies.
Mr. Thompson also asserts that the plaintiffs suing the DTCC for damages associated with the handling of naked short sales rely on “theories [that] are not an accurate reflection of how the capital market system actually works.” This assertion is inaccurate. There is no dispute about how the capital markets work -- nor any doubt that naked short sales have been used to manipulate and drive down the price of stocks, as seen in numerous death-spiral financing cases. The issue here is the DTCC’s role in allowing or facilitating such stock manipulation through its treatment of extended naked short sales.
In explaining the DTCC’s role in these matters, Mr. Thompson rejects the claim that the NSCC’s Stock Borrow program allows the same shares to be lent over and over again, potentially creating more shares than actually exist or “phantom” shares. By Mr. Thompson’s own account, shares borrowed by the NSCC to settle naked short sales are deducted from the lending member’s DTC account and credited to the DTC account of the member to whom the shares have been sold. Therefore, those same shares become available to be re-borrowed to settle another naked short sale and, if that happens, to be re-borrowed again and again to settle a succession of naked short sales. Throughout this process, the actual short sellers may continue to fail-to-deliver the shares to cover their shorts and, as Dr. Boni’s analysis of NSCC data found, the underlying failure can age for months or even years. The process which Mr. Thompson describes is one in which shares can be borrowed and lent over and over again, introducing more shares into the market than are legally registered and issued. If any ambiguity remains, Mr. Thompson can clarify it by responding to the following query: Once a share that has been borrowed through the NSCC Stock Borrow program is delivered to the purchaser, is that share restricted in any way so it cannot be lent again?
It is important to note that the Stock Borrow program is used when continuous net settlement cannot locate the shares to settle. As a consequence, Stock Borrow is usually called into play when there are relatively few shares available for borrowing. These are propitious conditions for market manipulation: Unscrupulous short sellers undertake large-scale naked short sales involving stocks for which few shares are available for trading and lending, relying on the Stock Borrow program to borrow the limited available shares, again and again, at sufficient levels to drive down the market price of the shares.
Mr. Thompson notes that of approximately $6 billion in outstanding failures-to-deliver existing on any day, “the Stock Borrow program is able to resolve about $1.1 billion … or about 20% [18 percent] of the total fail obligation.” In this statement, Mr. Thompson raises very serious questions about the integrity and operations of the NSCC and DTCC, which he can clarify by responding to the following queries: If the Stock Borrow program “resolves” only 18 percent of total fails, what is the disposition of the remaining 82 percent of outstanding fails? When failures-to-deliver occur that are not resolved through Stock Borrow, does the NSCC credit the undelivered shares to the member representing the buyer, creating genuine “phantom shares”? Finally, how many shares do the borrowing brokers, clearing firms and other participants in the Stock Borrow program owe the NSCC on a typical day, and what is their total value?
In a related matter, Mr. Thompson tries to distance the DTCC from charges that shares held in restricted accounts – for example, cash accounts, retirement accounts and many institutional accounts – are improperly lent through the Stock Borrow program by claiming that responsibility for segregating restricted shares from lendable shares falls to the “broker and bank members” of the DTCC, while responsibility for monitoring or regulating their performance in this matter falls to the stock exchanges and the SEC. As a trust company, the DTCC cannot hold that it has no role, duty or responsibility to ensure the probity of its operations. Mr. Thompson could address this issue by responding to the following queries: What procedures does the NSCC have to ensure that shares held in members’ accounts for possible loan through the NSCC Stock Borrow program are unencumbered by regulatory or legal restrictions from being pledged or assigned and eligible to be borrowed? On any given day, how many participants in the Stock Borrow program have lent shares that exceed their lendable shares, in what numbers and of what value?
Mr. Thompson also tries to distance the DTCC as far as possible from the naked short selling that generates most of the extended failures-to-deliver: “We don’t have any power or legal authority to regulate or stop short selling, naked or otherwise. We also have no power to force member firms to close out or resolve fails to deliver … we don’t even see whether a sale is short or not.”
In fact, the DTCC chooses to not distinguish short sales from long sales, chooses to not regulate or stop extended naked short sales, and chooses to not force member firms to resolve protracted naked short sales.
First, Regulation SHO requires that all transactions be clearly marked short or long. If the DTCC and NSCC do not know whether sales are short or long as Mr. Thompson contends, they choose to not know. Second, the NSCC has a clear responsibility and adequate means to stop naked short sales of extended duration, with no legal barrier that would prevent them from so doing. As a trust company with an acknowledged duty to provide investors certainty in the settlement and clearance of equity transactions, the DTCC chose to carry out that duty by assuming the role of counterparty to both sides of every equity transaction, through the operations of the NSCC’s CNS system and the Stock Borrow program. By allowing short sellers to fail-to-deliver shares for months or even years, the NSCC clearly fails to provide certainty in settlement to the buyers, sellers and issuers of securities. Since it is widely known that extended naked short sales have been used to manipulate stock prices in cases of death-spiral financing, and the NSCC created the Stock Borrow program to address failures-to-deliver that prominently include naked short sales, the NSCC and DTCC share a responsibility with the SEC and the stock exchanges to protect investors by resolving extended fails.
Third, the DTCC and NSCC have the clear capacity to force member firms to resolve the extended failures-to-deliver of their customers by purchasing shares on the open market and deducting the cost from the member’s account. A 2003 study by Dr. Richard Evans and others provides evidence that forced buy-ins by any party occur very rarely. They found that a major options market maker who failed to deliver all or a portion of shares sold in 69,063 transactions in 1998-1999 was bought-in only 86 times or barely one-tenth of 1 percent of the fails. Mr. Thompson can clarify investors’ understanding of their operations by responding to the following query: What proportion of shares that are persistent fails-to-deliver, of one month or longer, are ever bought in?
Mr. Thompson acknowledges that the DTCC and NSCC know precisely how many failures-to-deliver exist for each stock and the precise duration of each of these fails. Yet, the DTCC refuses to disclose this information even to the issuer of the stock in question, which Mr. Thompson justifies by citing “NSCC rules” prohibiting such a release of data based on “the obvious reason that the trading data we receive could be used to manipulate the market, as well as reveal trading patterns of individual firms.”
This response is both disingenuous and revealing. We know now, for the first time, that the DTCC has full knowledge of the extent of protracted, large-scale naked short sales in all particular cases. We also know now that the DTCC has had this information for at least a decade, since Mr. Thompson also notes that “fails, as a percentage of total trading, hasn’t changed in the last 10 years.” Yet, based on the DTCC’s own rules, it allowed these abuses to persist and fester. The DTCC and NSCC can change their rules at any time. Moreover, in this case, those rules are unjustified. Data documenting outstanding short sales in each stock are currently issued publicly, so further data on how many of those short sales are naked would not reveal additional information about the trading patterns of individual firms or in any way empower manipulators. In fact, the DTCC could substantially disarm manipulators by both publicly reporting naked short sales in each issue and pledging to force buy-ins of all naked short sales that persist for more than a limited period.
Surely, if large-scale, extended naked short sales have effectively created “phantom” shares, companies have a responsibility to their shareholders and the right to secure this information from the organization which manages the settlement of short sales. At a minimum, the DTCC should respond to requests by issuers for data on extended failures-to-deliver in their own stocks, both in the past and currently, so they can take steps to resist stock manipulators or bring them to account for past manipulation.
Mr. Thompson also claims that the DTCC did not create or manage the Stock Borrow program to serve its own financial interest, insisting that the service generates less than $2 million a year in direct fees to the DTCC and that all DTCC services are priced on a “not for profit” basis that seeks to match revenues with expenses. Without further information, these responses beg the question of whose private financial interest has been served by the Stock Borrow program, especially as the DTCC is owned by the stock markets, clearinghouses, brokerage and banking institutions that use its services. Mr. Thompson and the DTCC can clarify this serious matter by responding to the following queries: Do DTCC participant/owners receive interest or other payments through or from the Stock Borrow program for lending the shares of their customers and, if so, how much have they received for these activities over the last 10 years? Further, do DTCC participant/owners receive any dividend, interest or other payments or distributions from the DTCC or its subsidiaries?
I appreciate the opportunity to address the important issues raised by Mr. Thompson, and I look forward to your response to this request to publish these comments.
Sincerely,
Robert J. Shapiro
Don't know him, sorry.
Been paying attention to oldblue, who unfortunately can no longer post here?
I know you guys like to reserve the word "pumper" to someone on the longside of a trade, but I feel it's perfectly suitable for someone on the shortside of the trade as well. Both have an agenda.
If you don't agree, that's fine. I really don't care.
Keep laughing then.
as long as there are people like you around to laugh at
You're the one that has nothing better to do than waste your time online chatting about worthless stocks you don't own.
Perhaps I should be laughing at you? har har
Well, you did bring up your membermarks as if it were some sort of trophy.
I do? Whatever gave you that idea?
Not really. I simply said you are hated by just about everyone who trades pennystocks. Which is true.
you were the one who brought up the "popularity" issue.
Because he's got the evidence, not me.
Why should I talk to Byrne?
The wait is almost over...I guess you'll finally get to see what comes out in the wash. Byrne is crazy, you're right. He's chasing ghosts and Rocker is a saint.
For eight years, when people can't present an effective argument to me, they've said: "It'll all come out in the wash".
So it's OK to counterfeit stocks, as long as they are related to scamming companies?
Among the companies he's held up as shining examples of evil naked shorting are AZNT and ECNC. Both were outrageous scams.
How odd that very few responsible people are interested in this campaign.
LOL, c'mon now. I think maybe a few years ago, that statement would have been correct, but not now. O'Brien and Byrne pulled the rabbit out for everyone to see. Now you've got more than just "a few" who are interested in what's going on. Lemme guess, Ralph Lambiase is also "whacked", right?
I didn't say everyone hated her...
she was just pointing out that not every one hates her
I said just about everyone hates her, which is true.
Spare me the BS.
as well as a responsibility for doing our part on behalf of our fellow citizens.
Good for you. I hope you enjoy cleaning them for the rest of your life, as you seem to waste enough time on here doing just that.
I like clean toilets
Yeah, the "DTCC guy" is trustworthy. Afterall, he admitted that $6 BILLION is "lost" daily to FTDs.
Fails can occur for many reasons. See the interview given by the DTCC guy.
So why doesn't the SEC just give us the FTD list for CMKX? Why do they stonewall Frizzy's request? If there aren't any FTDs, just hand it over...right?
And don't forget: CMKX has never been on the SHO list.
Here we go...
One thing that doesn't seem to make sense with the "shorty" theory is exactly what you state in your post. If "shorty's" objective is to pound a company into oblivion, then how do you explain the upcoming devistation to "shorty" when the company disintegrates and disperses what's left to the shareholders. In other words, if what you are saying is true, and that when a dissolving company disperses its assets to its shareholders "shorty" is hammered, then why would "shorty" pound a stock like you believe "shorty" does? Wouldn't it be in "shorty's" interest, then to lay off a stock, not pound so hard, and avoid tanking the whole company?
You can't have it both ways. If "shorty" is out to destory a company, then that destruction can't hurt shorty. But, if the destruction of a company hurts "shorty", then "shorty" can't be out to destroy companies.
Most companies roll over and disappear like a fart in the wind, they don't "disperse" assets. That's why shorty loves to "pound" little companies into the ground. Mark Cuban said it best, "Some of my best friends are the stocks that became worthless over the years and I never had to cover."
In fact the whole "shorty" scenario doesn't make sense in this case. CMKX admits that it was delinquent on its filings, and admits to recklessly issuing 700+ billion shares, and admits to not having any money....CMKX would have tanked without "shorty's" help, correct??
Another way of looking at it is imagine that "shorty" doesn't exist. "Shorty" in no way has manipulated CMKX. Wouldn't CMKX be in the EXACT same place it is right now? Completely tanked, gutted and skipping town? If not, please explain how CMKX would be any different if "shorty" did not exist.
Since, "shorty's" existence really doesn't have an affect on what happened to CMKX, and that CMKX has clearly disclosed the fact that it is responsible for its own fate, then why are we still talking about "shorty"????? Why would anyone care???? What does "shorty" have to do with anything?
Because while the stock may have "tanked" naturally under retail selling pressure, there is the possibility that it was shorted in addition to the selling pressure...to the point, where the short exceeded the available float.
I'm just going on very simple logic here. It doesn't take any "secret master plan" or conviluted theories to realize that CMKX is garbage and tanked itself, and that "shorty" if there ever was a "shorty" is a non-issue, long gone, and definitely not going to get hurt from this.
Not necessarily. If there are too many people holding not enough shares, then shorty has a problem. Afterall, why did this stock go to the 5th decimal to trade? Why did many brokers stop taking buy orders, only sell orders? Why didn't this just go NO-BID? Afterall, the stock is "worthless" right? Why even offer a bid below the 4th decimal?
I've heard enough of "shorty". I heard it all through the dividends that CMKX dished out.... I heard it all through DTCC numbers that posters were saying "proved there was a shorty". I've heard it all through this whole ride, and not once did "shorty" EVER SHOW HIMSELF. Not a peep from "shorty", not a whisper. When the company came out and finally discolsed its massive pump and dump and its worthless value, we should have all realized that there was no shorty. That every "oddity" and "strange" behavior of CMKX can easily be explained by UC's massive dilution, stated clearly by UC himself. CMKX screams out loud that it was one big worthless company and one big pump and dump, and still you're talking about "shorty" whispering in the background. Who cares? "Shorty" has nothing to do with UC's criminal acts. WE DON'T NEED "SHORTY" AS AN EXPLANATION ANYMORE...WE KNOW THE FACTS, STATED BY CMKX ITSELF, AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE!!!!!! AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So that gives "shorty" the right to counterfeit stock behind the tape, ie. ex-clearing?
Doesn't matter how much of a scam a company is, counterfeiting is illegal for a reason.
Last post ladies...
Seems I've rattled the hornet's nest, but I've only got a limited # of posts, so I'll say adieu for tonight.
G'night shortpumpers.
I do?
You, on the other hand, have......five.
LOL, I didn't even know. But thanks for pointing that out. I feel "special" that even 5 people give a shit about what I have to say. You on the other hand consider it one of your major accomplishments in life. Now THAT is "whacked".
Talk to Byrne, not me. It will all come out in the wash.
You don't like Patch, eh?
You need to stop listening to whackjobs like Patchie.
Yeah, I'm sure you shortpumpers throw darts at posters of Patch, O'Brien and Byrne. They're all "whacked", right?Everyone said the same thing about Bernstein and Woodward when they started diggin into Watergate.
You said it, not me.
I guess I could clean the toilet but isn't that what I am doing here?
What a waste of time.
So how do these stocks end up on SHO? Why are their failed trades?
And they don't short 'em naked.
If all the paper sold on the offer is accounted for via toxic financing, why did the SEC feel a need to implement SHO and grandfather past fails? Based on what you just said, there should be a real share for every share sold short. But for some reason there isn't. Why?
LOL, clearly you haven't read the definition of counterfeiting as the government sees it.
------------------------------
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 25--COUNTERFEITING AND FORGERY
Sec. 514. Fictitious obligations
(a) Whoever, with the intent to defraud—
(1) draws, prints, processes, produces, publishes, or otherwise makes, or attempts or causes the same, within the United States;
(2) passes, utters, presents, offers, brokers, issues, sells, or attempts or causes the same, or with like intent possesses, within the United States; or
(3) utilizes interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of the mails or wire, radio, or other electronic communication, to transmit, transport, ship, move,
transfer, or attempts or causes the same, to, from, or through the United States,any false or fictitious instrument, document, or other item appearing, representing,
purporting, or contriving through scheme or artifice, to be an actual security or other financial instrument issued under the authority of the United States, a foreign
government, a State or other political subdivision of the United States, or an organization, shall be guilty of a class B felony.
(b) For purposes of this section, any term used in this section that is defined in section 513(c) has the same meaning given such term in section 513(c).
(c) The United States Secret Service, in addition to any other agency having such authority, shall have authority to investigate offenses under this section.
------------------------------
Naked short selling is the same thing as counterfeiting, end of story.
Stock is dead, right? Move on.
But for some ODD reason, none of you can.
LOL
1. Fun
2. Satisfaction
3. An opportunity to learn something new.
1. Yeah, ok. If this is your idea of fun, you must have been locked in a closet for the better part of your life.
2. Uhh, ok. Satisfaction of what? Being loathed by just about every person that trades microcaps and appreciated by a select few of your own cohorts? Pretty weak.
3. Dude, I think you've learned enough by now. You've had 8 years to realize that the penny markets are ripe with scams and corruption on both sides of the trade. Move on already.
If it has no value to investors, then what value does it have to you? Why do you continue to sit on this board and waste your time? Do you really have nothing better to do?
I understand it perfectly well. I also understand how naked shortselling works and it is perfectly akin to counterfeiting.
So I ask again, why can a hedge fund like Rocker pocket millions if not billions in naked short sales, fail to deliver and never be expected to cover? Isn't printing your own paper and pocketing proceeds from the sale of that transaction counterfeiting?
So market makers don't have their own printing presses? How do you naked short if you aren't creating your own shares out of thin air? Should we call it the "ex-clearing printing press" that hedge funds like Rocker like to use?
I didn't say you are the actual shortseller.
However, I am confident you are compensated by them in one form or another. The "for fun" excuse doesn't fly and surely doesn't justify your prolonged online activity with an emphasis on shortside pressure. Sooner or later, you would have moved on and found something more productive to do with yourself. I don't care how much of a loser you are.
I can't afford to short stocks in this price range. Nobody can.
So the naked short boogieman doesn't exist? Someone IS shorting these stocks. If it wasn't going on, short position disclosure would be available for small/micro cap listings. Instead, the SEC/DTC keeps a very tight lid on that info. Why?
That's not the point.
what are three really good resons to own this stock.
Why don't you give me three really good reasons why someone wastes 8 years of their life on these boards without some sort of vested interest...either long or short?
Because it's BS and he/she continues to hide behind that as if it were still believable.
Another redirect. That's what I thought. Thanks for confirming it.