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.
ohiotom dont buy the stock
there no gun to your head
we will see next week
proof is in the pudding
better yet call/email the ceo instead of tryin to insult my intelligance..
bottom line the float is tight at 3.1 mill
bottom line is news next week
go buy qbid or prrm with 60 billion shares
have a good day
cfge diffrence this time
there was no news in feb to hold it up ran up on air
next week we get meat ...there is a difference
good luck
CFGE NEWS " WHAT IM HEARING"
news tuesday
holiday is monday (market closed)
so time is closing in on the buyers.
fwiw
i have heard " RUMOURED" half the o/s will be retired /canceled
leaving the o/s just under 18 million
FACT
-----
3.1 million is the current " tradabe " float
all other share are resticted
and then there the NEWS ....which i cant disclose
but read apr 20 th pr ... i cant help but notice these " KEY" WORDS ..anyone of these sectors are cool with me .....
good luck
executive with a "Satellite Television Provider" with a finance and "Insurance Background"
"Energy Industry" and the" Telecommunications Industry"
The Company is investigating various companies that are interested in "Merging" into CF Green Corp
CF Green Corp. Announces New Board Members
LOS ANGELES, CA, Apr 20, 2005 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- CF Green Corporation (OTC: CFGE) announced today that the Board of Directors appointed two new directors, Mr. Tariq Ahmad and Mr. Jerry Kumar. The new directors will assist the Company in exploring merger and acquisition candidates.
Mr. Ahmad has a strong background in both the energy industry and the telecommunications industry. Mr. Kumar is an executive with a satellite television provider with a finance and insurance background. The Company is investigating various companies that are interested in merging into CF Green Corp. The Board of Directors and its management are dedicated in building shareholder value in the Company.
CFGE news next week ! CONFIRMED!!
that the honest to god's truth
also i have confirmed there are 3.1 million shares in the float
every other share in the conmpany is resticted !!!!
stock ran up to 50 cents in jan on nuttin
wait till the put out the pr
yes koolmc cfge news next week
there is news next week
holiday on monday ...
news tuesday
wont be 5 cents next week imho
seen some bigger buying this week
good luck to you
i rememeber when spea was 10 cents and little to no volume ....lol
12/30/04 8.600 9.200 8.500 9.150 60,820
12/29/04 8.250 8.850 7.900 8.520 50,895
12/28/04 8.000 8.660 7.700 8.270 20,920
12/27/04 8.450 8.650 8.030 8.100 25,802
12/23/04 7.450 8.590 7.450 8.000 101,190
12/22/04 6.400 7.660 5.700 7.200 235,237
12/21/04 7.500 7.500 6.450 6.450 127,830
12/20/04 10.150 10.150 7.050 7.500 408,215
12/17/04 6.440 11.200 6.400 9.100 1,705,677
12/16/04 0.370 7.500 0.370 6.410 1,339,073
12/15/04 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 375
12/14/04 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 20,000
12/09/04 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 2,500
12/03/04 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 200
12/01/04 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 15,000
11/24/04 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 5,000
11/22/04 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 15,000
11/19/04 0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120 2,000
11/15/04 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.160 1,500
11/10/04 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 5,000
C F G E reverse merger
talked to company and confirmed the float is 3.1 million shares
press release ready
they pr'ed they were looking to reverse merger apr 20 th
good luck guys
LOS ANGELES, CA, Apr 20, 2005 (MARKET WIRE via COMTEX) -- CF Green Corporation (OTC: CFGE) announced today that the Board of Directors appointed two new directors, Mr. Tariq Ahmad and Mr. Jerry Kumar. The new directors will assist the Company in exploring merger and acquisition candidates.
Mr. Ahmad has a strong background in both the energy industry and the telecommunications industry. Mr. Kumar is an executive with a satellite television provider with a finance and insurance background.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Company is investigating various companies that are interested in merging into CF Green Corp.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Board of Directors and its management are dedicated in building shareholder value in the Company.
The foregoing contains forward-looking information within the meaning of The Private Securities Litigation Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements involve certain risks and uncertainties. The actual results may differ materially from such forward-looking statements. The company does not undertake to publicly update or revise its forward-looking statements even if experience or future changes make it clear that any projected results (expressed or implied) will not be realized.
Contact:
CF Green Corp.
Dan Green
310.410.4426
dan@naturalsteaks.com
HI MACH
staked 1.94M hectares surrounding Western Warrior’s Eppler Lake permit
first of 1.9 million " hecters" over 2 acres in a hectre.
so that like 4.5 million acres plus
and the 1.9 m hectres is in mantobia not saskatchewan
i belive.
By: kipperca
27 Feb 2005, 12:01 AM EST
Msg. 809277 of 809277
Jump to msg. #
about this bore hole
cemet shaft ..
i wasnt there to hear what was said.
the bore holes
ill bet ya they were talking about shore gold
and someone might have misinterpeted they we talking about cmkx.
that the only thing that makes any sence about that..
imho
there were talking about shore gold.
that what shore just finished doing.
janice
my point being is
how big is the smeaton dump?
look i wont argue about 1000 acres or what ever.
my point is that
if the dump site is 3 acres
the kimberlite is 250 acres
how much of the kimberlite is not under the dumpsite?
you get my point right?
dizzigtal
if were both share holders we need not argue.
but i have to ask
does you holding cmkx for 4 years make you any smarter or wiser than me holding for the last 9 months?
were both goona get payed.
i just didnt have to wait 3.3 years as long.
i wasnt cutting up fellow share holders.
im shown you that the dump site doesnt cover the 800 acre kimberlite.
that was my only point.
and im sure you already know this.
janice...
one simple questions ..
if the kimberlite pipe target is 1000 acres in diameter
the dumpsite is 3 acres
how much of the kimberlite is left?
do you understand how exploation works?
1 ...first you find the target
2.... secondly you drill the target to define its limits and boundries.
pleaze dont sit here and tell me the dump cover the whole 800 acres of the kimberlite pipe.
lol gump
these ppl are pretty good .
they think were goona drill thru 150 feet of garbage then we hit kimberlite.
lol
look where there drilling. its not in the garbage piles itself.
its closed to the tree line.
i used to work in the oil patch and we used to do siemic in some crazy places.
we'd have to put geo phones in the ground before we set of the dynimate explosions so the geo phones would record the seimic waves etc to tell us what was in the ground.
imagine
oil underneath a 50 ft cow sheet pile.
i magine oil under a landfill.
imagine diamonds underneath a cow sheet pile
imagine diamonds under a landfill
man ppl are unreal .
we got coal mines that run under landfills
these ppl are so outta touch.
like you said the oil, dimaonds, gold , zinc, etc were long there before any landfill, cowsheet pile etc
the whole thing about exploration is to determin the boundries.
if the kimberlite is for example 800 arces in diameter
and the land fill is on 1/2 acre
whats your problem ppl?
the whole kimberlite isnt under or near the land fill!
there oil under building in downtown texas..
again picture an oil pool 800 acres in diameter
there a farm house and farm that occupies 10 acres.
does that make the other 790 acre oil pool worth less?
picture that .
and people wake the .... up.!
wow
i just read that
hal got dung for $8000 dollars for selling unregistar securites
compared to
hartley berstien from www. stockpatrol.com got wacked for $850,000 dollars and plead guilty and pleaded guilty to perjury and conspiracy to commit securities fraud.and stayed outta prision cause he turned rat informant.
what am i missing? are we to compare the 2 individuals?
should hal start his own new letter and we can for give him just like we have hartley berstien from stockpatrol.com ?
thanks i never knew
all i wonder if he never got caught would he still be doin what he was doin back then?
i mean he obviously wasnt ready to tell until he got caught.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
He became aware of certain aspects of their crimes, didn't tell regulators
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
picture this.
i steal $5000 from you janice shells
then you catch me
then 2 years later your reading my paper on why theft is bad
and who is a theif.
what would be your reaction ?
just strikes me as odd.
but i guess people can change.
i like kipper when he said maybe its time for oj simpsion to start up www.muderpatrol.com
and go after killers in america.
THANKS JANICE I WAS WONDERING I WAS DOIN DD
and read this
By: kipperca
23 Feb 2005, 08:44 PM EST
Msg. 805719 of 805720
Jump to msg. #
Sixty days and counting. Tick tock.
http://www.stockpatrol.com/article/key/cmkm221
In New York, Mr. Bernstein knows people will be judging him every day for the rest of his life. He once led a firm with a dozen attorneys. Now, 13 of his former clients are in jail, and he spends 45 hours a week alone at his computer, tending to StockPatrol.com. His wife, an attorney, pays the bills.
Hartley Bernstein has a neighbor who revels in calling him "a felon." His mother wonders: "Did I do something wrong raising you?" His probation officer asks: "What are you doing with your life?"
Mr. Bernstein used to be a prominent New York attorney, a self-described "rainmaker." But he represented stock-manipulation schemers who were cheating investors out of $150 million. He became aware of certain aspects of their crimes, didn't tell regulators, and in 1999 pleaded guilty to perjury and conspiracy to commit securities fraud. He has since paid court-ordered restitution of $850,000, returning his profits from several deals.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr16163.htm
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 16163 / May 27, 1999
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Hartley T. Bernstein,
No. 99 Civ. 3885 (S.D.N.Y.)
ATTORNEY SETTLES CHARGES THAT HE PROFITED BY MORE THAN $500,000 FROM
ROLE IN LARGER MICROCAP SECURITIES FRAUD
The Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") today filed its third civil action arising from the massive securities fraud that was conducted through Sterling Foster & Co., Inc. ("Sterling Foster"), a registered broker-dealer. In today’s Complaint, which was filed in federal court in Manhattan, the Commission charged an attorney with fraudulently obtaining over $500,000 by selling securities shortly after the initial public offerings ("IPOs") of five companies for which the defendant’s law firm acted as counsel
http://www.ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=CMKX&read=805591
hi janice
i was wondering you opinion on www.stockpatrol.com
look im not a idiot.
one of the top 5 oil companies in the world
SANTOS
"The average proven reserve replacement cost for the past calendar year was $US12.37 per barrel of oil equivalent (boe)"
IM USING 10 DOLLARS!! IM CONCERTIVE WHEN I VALUE STRAT ASSET AT 10 DOLLARS US PER BARREL.
WHEN IT BECOMES PRODUCING THEN IT WILL BE WORTH MUCH MORE.
UNTIL THEN IM USING 10 DOLLARS!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
THE 1.2 BILLION BARREL DISCOVERY NAMED "BUZZARD" IN THE NORTH SEA
PETRO CANADA PURCHASED
29 % INTRESTS IN THAT PLAY FOR ??? YES YOU GUESSED IT
10.10 US PER BARREL!!!
DO YOUR HOME WORK .. THE NORTH SEA IS ONE OF THE MOST HIGHEST COST PLACES TO DO BISSNESS IN THE WORLD.
Santos shares jump as reserves upgraded
February 15, 2005 - 5:49PM
Page Tools
* Email to a friend
* Printer format
*
*
Santos shares jumped more than four per cent as the company announced its third consecutive year of rising reserves.
The oil and gas group's replacement rate for proven reserves over the last three years has averaged 130 per cent.
In other good news out Santos said oil production at its 33 per cent owned Mutineer-Exeter oil fields would commence next month several months ahead of schedule and 10 per cent below budget.
Initial production at the fields in the Carnarvon Basin off Western Australia, is expected to be between 70,000 to 90,000 barrels of oil a day.
The company confirmed that proven and probable reserves at the field were lower than previously expected and were now estimated to be 61 million barrels (mmbbls) down from 101 mmbbls.
This disappointment will be offset by reports that during 2004 total replacement reserves for the group exceeded total group production.
Proven reserves increased to 348 million barrels of oil equivalent (mmboe), compared with 338 mmboe at the end of 2003.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
Proven plus probable reserves rose to 643 mmboe compared with 636 mmboe a year earlier.
Santos shares closed up 38 cents or 4.1 per cent at $9.65.
These results do not include potential reserves expected from Santos's recent Jeruk oil discovery in the Sampang PSC in East Java or the Hiu Aman oil and gas discovery in the Donggala PSC in the Kutei Basin.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The average proven reserve replacement cost for the past calendar year was $US12.37 per barrel of oil equivalent (boe).
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The company said its three-year average replacement cost of $US7.19 per boe was world-competitive.
The improved reserves were the result of a combination of development drilling, the commercialisation of significant volumes of new gas contracts, and a number of strategic acquisitions.
The acquisition of some of Novus Petroleum's assets and an increase in the group's equity in the Gippsland Basin's Patricia Baleen project added 22mboe or proven and probable reserves, Santos said.
However it said a major focus of the group's 2004 capital program was the conversion of undeveloped reserves to the developed category.
During the year, 102 mmboe of proven reserves and 134 mmboe of proven plus probable reserves were developed, significantly increasing the value of reserves.
The improved reserves were the result of a combination of development drilling, the commercialisation of significant volumes of new gas contracts and acquisitions.
"Santos actively bought and sold assets in 2004, resulting in a net increase of 22 mmboe proven and probable reserves from the acquisition of certain assets of Novus Petroleum and an increase in Patricia Baleen equity," Santos said.
It said it lost negligible reserves due to divestments.
© 2005 AAP
NOW DO YOUR MATH!!! 10.10 US PER BARREL!
http://www.petro-canada.ca/eng/media/10734_9886.htm
Petro-Canada Advances Growth Strategy with Major North Sea Acquisition
CALGARY, May 25/CNW — Petro-Canada today announced it has agreed to acquire a 29.9 per cent interest in the Buzzard oil field in the UK North Sea for a sum of US$840 million ($1,150 million Canadian). Buzzard, located 100 kilometres northeast of Aberdeen, is currently under development, with first oil expected by the end of 2006. Buzzard is the largest UK North Sea oil field discovered in over a decade. Petro-Canada’s share of peak production is expected to average some 60,000 barrels per day.
“This acquisition adds a superb new core asset to our portfolio,” said Petro-Canada President and Chief Executive Officer, Ron Brenneman. “It’s a perfect fit with our international growth strategy, since it builds on our existing base of operations in Northwest Europe. Buzzard is well timed to add production in the medium term, coming on-stream ahead of our longer-term growth opportunities.”
Petro-Canada will purchase Intrepid Energy North Sea Limited, whose major asset is the 29.9 per cent working interest in Buzzard. Original oil in place for the field is estimated to be about 1.2 billion barrels and Petro-Canada currently estimates that recovery will be in the order of 550 million barrels of oil. The Buzzard field is operated by EnCana (U.K.) Limited. Adjacent acreage with exploration potential is included in the transaction.
“This is a value-adding transaction for Petro-Canada, consistent with our disciplined approach to investment,” Mr. Brenneman said. “The UK North Sea is an excellent place to do business, and we expect this asset to continue our history of profitable production in the region. We see technical and operational upside at Buzzard and we believe this field will continue the region’s track record of big fields getting even bigger over time.”
To capture the opportunity offered by today’s high oil price environment and to ensure value-adding returns even in the event of a sharp drop in oil prices, Petro-Canada has hedged a significant portion of its share of Buzzard’s early production at the market’s projected future oil price (current forward strip price).
The company will be acquired in an all-cash transaction that will be financed from cash reserves and existing credit facilities. Following this transaction, Petro-Canada’s net debt to cash flow ratio will be about 0.8 times and net debt to debt plus equity will be approximately 25 per cent. These ratios are well within company targets and consistent with industry peer levels. Petro-Canada will retain its financial capability to undertake further transactions through its strong balance sheet. Petro-Canada expects that its share of the capital required to bring the field to first oil, about Cdn $790 million, will be funded from cash flow generated by the corporation.
The purchase price of US$840 million is subject to closing adjustments and transaction costs. Petro-Canada expects the transaction to close by the end of the second quarter 2004. The transaction is subject to receiving approval from the shareholders of Intrepid Energy North Sea (Holdings) Limited, the parent company owning Intrepid Energy North Sea Limited. Shareholder approval is anticipated in June 2004. Petro-Canada managed the acquisition internally with external advice from Deutsche Bank (deal support), Lovells (legal) and Reservoir Management Limited (reservoir engineering consultants).
More detailed information about Buzzard and about this transaction is available in an Information Handbook.
Petro-Canada is one of Canada’s largest oil and gas companies, operating in both the upstream and downstream sectors of the industry in Canada and internationally. Its common shares trade on the Toronto Stock Exchange (TSX) under the symbol PCA and on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol PCZ.
hello barrels...remember it is all opinion here...Maybe the guy was being conservative...in any case the company will come out with the real goods soon enough and then we all shall know...To me it is all good...
yes i agree it good to be concertive.
but come on .
your house is worth 100,000 dollars would you value it at 60,000 just to be concertive? lol
no you would not.
proven oil reserves in ground are worth 10 us per barrel.
my math dont lie.
its industry standard at the present time.
that what i know .
TO ANYONE WHO IS WONDERING
IF THE O/S IS STILL 85 MILLION AND FLOAT IS 40 MILLION
CALLLL PUT YOUR MIND AT EASE
ITS VERY EASY TO DO. THEY WONT BITE YOU
Transfer Agent:
Select Fidelity Transfer Services
38 Dorothy Street
Welland, ON L3B 3V7
Tel: (905) 892-3920
Fax: (905) 892-7855
there are so many here that have no CLUE to what they speak of.
im sorry dennis you are one.
who ever is using 6 dollars a bbl your another.
this isnt a personal attack by no means.
but let me show you some thing.
cant anyone explain to me how they came up with 6 dollars a barrel?
you need to use 10 us per barrel.
now does any one know what " proven oil " is?
proven oil = 90 percent chance of recovering the oil"
probable = better than 50 percent of recovering the oil.
TORONTO, Feb 16, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Strat Petroleum, Ltd. (OTCPS:SPRL) has completed an agreement with a Company in Russia called the Industrial Scientific Centre to establish a 50/50 joint venture, and 80% net profit interest to develop a field with significant reserves known as the Ementajevskoje oil site, the license to which is currently owned by the Industrial Scientific Centre. The field has proven reserves of over 11.25 million barrels of crude oil, and probable reserves of over 26.0 million barrels
firstly ,
80% net profit interest.
STRAT WILL RECIVE 80 PERCENT OF ALL " PROFIT " OR " REVENUE" AFTER TAXES ETC THAT COMES OFF THE FIELD.
1500 BARRELS A DAY X 45 DOLLARS A BARRELS = 600,000 A DAY IN " GROOS REVENUES"
BACK OUT ALL EXPENSES , TAXES ETC THEN YOU WILL HAVE ' GROSS REVENUES.
80 PERCENT OF GROSS GOES TO STRAT.
YOU DO YOU MATH ON THAT.
SECONDLY
FIELD VALUE....
11.25 million barrels of proven oil = $ 112, 500, 000
STRAt owns 50 percent = 5.625 million barrels of " PROVEN "
112,500,000 dollars divided by 50 % = 56 .25 million dollars
JUST ON " proven oil" nutting else
86 million shares divided by 56.25 million dollars
= 66 cents a share and thats just " proven oil"
NOW WHATS PROBABLE OIL WORTH ????
DO I NEED TO GO ANY FUTHER?
I DONT THINK SO.
AND
P.S
THIS IS THE " SMALL DEAL"
PREPARE FOR THE BOMB TO BE RELEASED THIS WEEK
IMHO
With his formidable contacts, at 86, Maheu can still "condition atmospheres" from here to the Middle East.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Aug-17-Tue-2004/news/24553411.html
huh?
love to take a peak at his rlex and black book..
probally scare ya who he knows..
gootta love formidable contacts
he ready to kick ?
are you saying he ready on his death bed??
news to me
this 87 year old sounds more than coherent to me
just gave a speech on the 25 th of january 2005
maybe it was a imposter or actor he hired to stand in congress and give this speeech for him??
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches.html
http://byrd.senate.gov/byrd_speeches/byrd_speeches_2005_january/byrd_speeches_2005_january.html
Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks Tuesday as the Senate debated the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. The Senate is scheduled to vote on the nomination on Wednesday.
The Constitution, in Article Two, Section Two, states that the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States..." Recognizing that the Senate's role of advice and consent is one of the few legislative powers explicitly cited in the Constitution, Senator Byrd believes that it is a power that Senators of both parties must rigorously protect. It is not a ceremonial exercise.
With regard to this nomination, Senator Byrd has been particularly concerned about Dr. Rice's role in crafting the Bush doctrine of preemption, or the first-strike war. No one denies that the President has the inherent authority to repel attacks against our country, but Senator Byrd believes that the doctrine of first-strike war against another country which does not pose an imminent threat to the United States is unconstitutional.
In Federalist Number 77, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
"It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing."
Although Hamilton explains the importance of the role of the Senate in the appointment of officers of the United States, neither he, nor the Constitution, is specific about what criteria Senators must use to judge the qualifications of a nominee. The Constitution only requires that the Senate give its advice and consent. It is therefore left to Senators to use their own judgment in considering their vote. The factors involved in such judgments may vary among Senators, among nominees, and may even change in response to the needs of the times.
The position of Secretary of State is among the most important offices for which the Constitution requires the advice and consent of the Senate. It is the Secretary of State that sits at the right hand of the President during meetings of the Cabinet. The Secretary of State is all the more important today, considering the enormous diplomatic challenges our country will face in the next four years.
I must commend the Foreign Relations Committee for its work in bringing the nomination of Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the Floor of the Senate. Chairman Richard Lugar conducted two days of hearings for this nominee, and the debate that began in the committee on this nomination is now being continued here on the Floor of the Senate. Senator Biden also provided a voice of great foreign policy experience during those hearings. I was particularly impressed by Senator Boxer, who tackled her role on the committee with passion and forthrightness, as did Senator Kerry.
There is no doubt that Dr. Rice has a remarkable record of personal achievement. She obtained her bachelor's degree at the tender age of 19. Speaking as someone who did not earn a bachelor's degree until I had reached 77 years of age, I have a special appreciation for Dr. Rice's impressive academic achievement. She then obtained a doctorate in international studies, and quickly rose through the academic ranks to become Provost of Stanford University.
Dr. Rice has also gathered extensive experience in foreign policy matters. She is a recognized expert on matters relating to Russia and the former Soviet Union. She has twice worked on the National Security Council, once as the senior advisor on Soviet issues, and most recently, for four years as National Security Advisor. Dr. Rice has had ample exposure to the nuances of international politics, and by that measure, she is certainly qualified for the position of Secretary of State.
The next Secretary of State will have large shoes to fill. I have closely watched the career of Colin Powell since he served as National Security Advisor to President Reagan, and we worked together during the Senate consideration of the INF Treaty of 1988. He distinguished himself in his service as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, particularly during the 1991 Gulf War. When his nomination came before the Senate in 2001, I supported his confirmation based upon the strength of his record.
The vote that the Senate will conduct tomorrow, however, is not simply a formality to approve of a nominee's educational achievement or level of expertise. I do not subscribe to the notion that the Senate must confirm a President's nominees, barring criminality or lack of experience. The Constitution enjoins Senators to use their judgment in considering nominations.
I am particularly dismayed by accusations I have read that Senate Democrats, by insisting on having an opportunity to debate the nomination of Dr. Rice, have somehow been engaged in nothing more substantial than "petty politics" or partisan delaying tactics. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Senate's role of advice and consent to presidential nominations is not a ceremonial exercise.
I have stood on this Senate floor more times than I can count to defend the prerogatives of this institution and the separate but equal – with emphasis on the word "equal" – powers of the three branches of government. A unique power of the Legislative Branch is the Senate's role in providing advice and consent on the matter of nominations. That power is not vested in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or any other committee; nor does it repose in a handful of Senate leaders. It is not a function of pomp and circumstance, and it was never intended by the Framers to be used to burnish the image of a President on inauguration day.
And yet that is exactly what Senators were being pressured to do last week – to acquiesce mutely to the nomination of one of the most important members of the President's Cabinet without the merest hiccup of debate or the smallest inconvenience of a roll call vote.
And so we are here today to fulfill our constitutional duty to consider the nomination of Dr. Rice to be Secretary of State. Mr. President, I have carefully considered Dr. Rice's record as National Security Advisor in the two months that have passed since the President announced her nomination to be Secretary of State. That record, I am afraid, is one of intimate involvement in a number of Administration foreign policies which I strongly oppose. These policies have fostered enormous opposition -- both at home and abroad -- to the White House's view of America's place in the world.
That view of America is one which encourages our Nation to flex its muscles without being bound by any calls for restraint. The most forceful explanation of this idea can be found in "The National Security Strategy of the United States," a report which was issued by the White House in September 2002. Under this strategy, the President lays claim to an expansive power to use our military to strike other nations first, even if we have not been threatened or provoked.
There is no question that the President has the inherent authority to repel attacks against our country, but this National Security Strategy is unconstitutional on its face. It takes the checks and balances established in the Constitution that limit the President's ability to use our military at his pleasure, and throws them out the window.
This doctrine of preemptive strikes places the sole decision of war and peace in the hands of the President and undermines the Constitutional power of Congress to declare war. The Founding Fathers required that such an important issue of war be debated by the elected representatives of the people in the Legislative Branch precisely because no single man could be trusted with such an awesome power as bringing a nation to war by his decision alone. And yet, that it exactly what the National Security Strategy proposes.
Not only does this pernicious doctrine of preemptive war contradict the Constitution, it barely acknowledges its existence. The National Security Strategy makes only one passing reference to the Constitution: it states that "America's constitution" -- that is "constitution" with a small C -- "has served us well." As if the Constitution does not still serve this country well! One might ask if that reference to the Constitution was intended to be a compliment or an obituary?
As National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice was in charge of developing the National Security Strategy. She also spoke out forcefully in support of the dangerous doctrine of preemptive war. In one speech, she argues that there need not be an imminent threat before the United States attacks another nation: "So as a matter of common sense," said Dr. Rice on October 1, 2002, "the United States must be prepared to take action, when necessary, before threats have fully materialized."
But that "matter of common sense" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. For that matter, isn't it possible to disagree with this "matter of common sense?" What is common sense to one might not be shared by another. What's more, matters of common sense can lead people to the wrong conclusions. John Dickinson, the chief author of the Articles of Confederation, said in 1787, "Experience must be our only guide; reason may mislead us." As for me, I will heed the experience of Founding Fathers, as enshrined in the Constitution, over the reason and "common sense" of the Administration's National Security Strategy.
We can all agree that the President, any President, has the inherent duty and power to repel an attack on the United States. But where in the Constitution can the President claim the right to strike at another nation before it has even threatened our country, as Dr. Rice asserted in that speech? To put it plainly, Dr. Rice has asserted that the President holds far more of the war power than the Constitution grants him.
This doctrine of attacking countries before a threat has "fully materialized" was put into motion as soon as the National Security Strategy was released. Beginning in September 2002, Dr. Rice also took a position on the front lines of the Administration's effort to hype the danger of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.
Dr. Rice is responsible for some of the most overblown rhetoric that the Administration used to scare the American people into believing that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. On September 8, 2002, Dr. Rice conjured visions of American cities being consumed by mushroom clouds. On an appearance on CNN, she warned: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he [Saddam] can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Dr. Rice also claimed that she had conclusive evidence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons program. During that same interview, she also said: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. We do know that there have been shipments going into… Iraq, for instance, of aluminum tubes… that are really only suited for nuclear weapons programs."
We now know that Iraq's nuclear program was a fiction. Charles Duelfer, the chief arms inspector of the CIA's Iraq Survey Group, reported on September 30, 2004: "Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. [The Iraq Survey Group] found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program."
But Dr. Rice's statements in 2002 were not only wrong, they also did not accurately reflect the intelligence reports of the time. Declassified portions of the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 make it clear that there were disagreements among our intelligence analysts about the state of Iraq's nuclear program. But Dr. Rice seriously misrepresented their disputes when she categorically stated, "We do know that [Saddam] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."
Her allegation also misrepresented to the American people the controversy in those same intelligence reports about the aluminum tubes. Again, Dr. Rice said that these tubes were "really only suited for nuclear weapons programs." But intelligence experts at the State Department and the Department of Energy believed that those tubes had nothing to do with building a nuclear weapon, and made their dissent known in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate. This view, which was at odds with Dr. Rice's representations, was later confirmed by the International Atomic Energy Agency and our own CIA arms inspectors.
Dr. Rice made other statements that helped to build a case for war by implying a link between Iraq and September 11. On multiple occasions, Dr. Rice spoke about the supposed evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were in league with each other. For example, on September 25, 2002, Dr. Rice said on the PBS NewsHour:
"No one is trying to make an argument at this point that Saddam Hussein somehow had operational control of what happened on September 11, so we don't want to push this too far, but this is a story that is unfolding, and it is getting clear, and we're learning more…. But yes, there clearly are contact[s] between Al Qaeda and Iraq that can be documented; there clearly is testimony that some of the contacts have been important contacts and that there is a relationship there."
What Dr. Rice did not say was that some of those supposed links were being called into question by our intelligence agencies, such as the alleged meeting between a 9-11 ringleader and an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague that has now been debunked. These attempts to connect Iraq and Al Qaeda appear to be a prime example of cherry-picking intelligence to hype the supposed threat of Iraq, while keeping contrary evidence away from the American people, wrapped up in the red tape of top secret reports.
Dr. Rice pressed the point even further, creating scenarios that threatened tens of thousands of American lives, even when that threat wasn't supported by intelligence. On March 9, 2003, just eleven days before the invasion of Iraq, Dr. Rice appeared on "Face the Nation" and said:
"Now the al-Qaida is an organization that's quite dispersed and --and quite widespread in its effects, but it clearly has had links to the Iraqis, not to mention Iraqi links to all kinds of other terrorists. And what we do not want is the day when Saddam Hussein decides that he's had enough of dealing with sanctions, enough of dealing with, quote, unquote, "containment," enough of dealing with America, and it's time to end it on his terms, by transferring one of these weapons, just a little vial of something, to a terrorist for blackmail or for worse."
But the intelligence community had already addressed this scenario with great skepticism. In fact, the CIA's National Intelligence Estimate from October 2002 concluded that it had "low confidence" that Saddam would ever transfer any weapons of mass destruction – weapons that he did not have, as it turned out – to anyone outside of his control. This is yet more evidence of an abuse of intelligence in order to build the case for an unprovoked war with Iraq.
And what has been the effect of the first use of the reckless doctrine of preemptive war? In a most ironic and deadly twist, the false situation described by the Administration before the war -- namely, that Iraq was a training ground for terrorists poised to attack us -- is exactly the situation that our war in Iraq has created.
But it was this unjustified war that created the situation that the President claimed he was trying to prevent. Violent extremists have flooded into Iraq from all corners of the world. Iraqis have taken up arms themselves to fight against the continuing U.S. occupation of their country. According to a CIA report released in December 2004, intelligence analysts now see Iraq, destabilized by the Administration's ill-conceived war, as the training ground for a new generation of terrorists. [Mapping the Global Future: Report of the National Intelligence Council's 2020 Project, pp. 94] It should be profoundly disturbing to all Americans if the most dangerous breeding ground for terrorism shifted from Afghanistan to Iraq, simply because of the Administration's ill-advised rush to war in March 2003.
Dr. Rice's role in the war against Iraq was not limited to building the case for an unprecedented, preemptive invasion of a country that had not attacked us first. Her role also extends to the Administration's failed efforts to establish peace in Iraq. In October 2003, five months after he declared "Mission Accomplished," the President created the Iraq Stabilization Group, headed by Dr. Rice. The task of the Iraq Stabilization Group was to coordinate efforts to speed reconstruction aid to help bring the violence in Iraq to an end.
But what has the Iraq Stabilization Group accomplished under the leadership of Dr. Rice? When she took the helm of the stabilization efforts, 319 U.S. troops had been killed in Iraq. That number now stands at 1,368 as of today (Tuesday 1/25). More than 10,600 troops have been wounded. The cost of the war has spiraled to $149 billion, and the White House is on the verge of asking Congress for another $80 billion. Despite the mandate of the Iraq Stabilization Group, the situation in Iraq has gone from bad to worse. More ominously, the level of violence only keeps growing, week after week, month after month, and no Administration official, whether from the White House, the Pentagon, or Foggy Bottom, has made any predictions about when the violence will finally subside.
Furthermore, of the $18.4 billion in Iraqi reconstruction aid appropriated by Congress in October 2003, the Administration has spent only $2.7 billion. With these funds moving so slowly, it is hard to believe that the Iraq Stabilization Group has had any success at all in speeding the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. For all the hue and cry about the need to speed up aid to Iraq, one wonders if there should be more tough questions asked of Dr. Rice about what she has accomplished as the head of this group.
There are also many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's record as National Security Advisor. Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism advisor, has leveled scathing criticism against Dr. Rice and the National Security Council for failing to recognize the threat from Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden in the months leading up to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In particular, Mr. Clarke states that he submitted a request on January 25, 2001, for an urgent meeting of the National Security Council on the threat of al Qaeda.
However, due to decisions made by Dr. Rice and her staff, that urgent meeting did not occur until too late: the meeting was not actually called until September 4, 2001. Mr. Clarke, who is widely acknowledged as one of the leading authorities on terrorism in government at that time, told the 9-11 Commission that he was so frustrated with those decisions that he asked to be reassigned to different issues, and the Bush White House approved that request.
Dr. Rice appeared before the 9-11 Commission on April 8, 2004, but if anything, her testimony raised only more questions about what the President and others knew about the threats to New York City and Washington, D.C. in the weeks before the attacks, and whether more could have been done to prevent them.
Why wasn't any action taken when she and the President received an intelligence report on August 6, 2001, entitled, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States?" Why did Dr. Rice and President Bush reassign Richard Clarke, the leading terrorism expert in the White House, soon after taking office in 2001? Why did it take nine months for Dr. Rice to call the first high-level National Security Council meeting on the threat of Osama bin Laden? As the Senate debates her nomination today, we still have not heard full answers to these questions.
In addition to Mr. Clarke's criticism, Dr. David Kay, the former CIA weapons inspector in Iraq, also has strong words for the National Security Council and its role in the run up to the war in Iraq. When Dr. Kay appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee on August 18, 2004, to analyze why the Administration's pre-war intelligence was so wrong about weapons of mass destruction, he described the National Security Council as the "dog that didn't bark" to warn the President about the weakness of those intelligence reports. Dr. Kay continued: "Every president who has been successful, at least that I know of, in the history of this republic, has developed both informal and formal means of getting checks on whether people who tell him things are in fact telling him the whole truth.… The recent history has been a reliance on the NSC system to do it. I quite frankly think that has not served this president very well."
What Dr. Kay appears to state was his view that the National Security Council, under the leadership of Dr. Rice, did not do a sufficient job of raising doubts about the quality of the intelligence about Iraq. On the contrary, based upon Dr. Rice's statements that I quoted earlier, her rhetoric even went beyond the questionable intelligence that the CIA had available on Iraq, in order to hype the threats of aluminum tubes, mushroom clouds, and connections between Iraq and September 11.
In light of the massive reorganization of our intelligence agencies enacted by Congress last year, shouldn't this nomination spur the Senate to stop, look, and listen about what has been going on in the National Security Council for the last four years? Don't these serious questions about the failings of the National Security Council under Dr. Rice deserve a more through examination before the Senate votes to confirm her as the next Secretary of State?
Accountability has become an old-fashioned notion in some circles these days, but accountability is not a negotiable commodity when it comes to the highest circles of our nation's government. The accountability of government officials is an obligation, not a luxury. And yet, accountability is an obligation that this President and his administration appear loath to fulfill.
Instead of being held to account for their actions, the architects of the policies that led our nation into war with Iraq, policies based on faulty intelligence and phantom weapons of mass destruction, have been rewarded by the President with accolades and promotions. Instead of admitting to mistakes in the war on Iraq and its disastrous aftermath, the President and his inner circle of advisers continue to cling to myths and misconceptions. The only notion of accountability that this President is willing to acknowledge is the November elections, which he has described as a moment of accountability and an endorsement of his policies. Unfortunately, after-the-fact validation of victory is hardly the standard of accountability that the American people have the right to expect from their elected officials. It is one thing to accept responsibility for success; it is quite another to accept accountability for failure.
Sadly, failure has tainted far too many aspects of our nation's international policies over the past four years, culminating in the deadly insurgency that has resulted from the invasion of Iraq. With respect to this particular nomination, I believe that there needs to be accountability for the mistakes and missteps that have led the United States into the dilemma in which it finds itself today, besieged by increasing violence in Iraq, battling an unprecedented decline in world opinion, and increasingly isolated from our allies due to our provocative, belligerent, bellicose, and unilateralist foreign policy.
Whether the Administration will continue to pursue these policies cannot be known to Senators today, as we prepare to cast our votes. At her confirmation hearing on January 18, Dr. Rice proclaimed that "Our interaction with the rest of the world must be a conversation, not a monologue." But two days later, President Bush gave an inaugural address that seemed to rattle sabers at any nation that he does not consider to be free. Before Senators cast their vote, we must wonder whether we are casting our lot for more diplomacy or more belligerence? Reconciliation or more confrontation? Which face of this Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde foreign policy will be revealed in the next four years?
Although I do not question her credentials, I do oppose many of the critical decisions that Dr. Rice has made during her four years as National Security Advisor. She has a record, and the record is there for us to judge. There remain too many unanswered questions about Dr. Rice's failure to protect our country before the tragic attacks of September 11, her public efforts to politicize intelligence, and her often stated allegiance to the doctrine of preemption.
To confirm Dr. Rice to be the next Secretary of State is to say to the American people, and the world, that the answers to those questions are no longer important. Her confirmation will most certainly be viewed as another endorsement of the Administration's unconstitutional doctrine of preemptive war, its bullying policies of unilateralism, and its callous rejection of our long-standing allies.
The stakes for the United States are too high. I cannot endorse higher responsibilities for those who helped set our great country down the path of increasing isolation, enmity in the world, and a war that has no end. For these reasons, I shall cast my vote in opposition to the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice to be the next Secretary of State.
###
hey free,
lol
im sure maheu has many big time $$$ contacts i mean he's hobnobed with billionaires and millionares and gov't all his life.
lets think of it this way...
hypothetical situation...
maheu has big money casino owners friends and associates
casino owners they love to make money after all vegas is all about the $$$ isnt it?
cmkx has a major naked short..
maheu's big money contacts see a oppurtunity to " break the short" and make major money by doin so..
make any sence?
maheu's contacts and associates would have the $$$$ to do so
what ya think?
these guys on hospital beds?
The average age of Senators in the 109th Congress is 60.4 years, the oldest in history.
The youngest
Representative, as well as youngest Member of Congress, is Patrick McHenry (R-NC),
29. The oldest Representative is Ralph Hall (R-TX), 81.
The
oldest Senator, as well as the oldest current Member of Congress, is Robert C. Byrd (DWV),
87.
Regulation SHO Spotlight Suddenly Turns Bright Lights On Illegal Naked Short Selling
Jan 10, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire) Regulation SHO, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission effort to make a Federal case out of illegal naked short selling, is here, and it is turning a broad spotlight on brokerages' failures to deliver stock certificates purchased from them by investors that appears to be much brighter and more intrusive than either the detractors had expected or perhaps the market makers used to minimal accountability had wanted.
As of press deadline almost 500 public companies, including Delta Air Lines (DAL), Taser International (TASR), Netflix (NFLX), and Isonics (ISON), had ended up on the new "threshold lists" maintained by the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ,. American Stock Exchange and other exchanges in response to the requirements of Regulation SHO,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
READ IMPORTANT..
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
and companies on the list may turn into super-volatile trading opportunities this week and in the weeks ahead.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
MY COMMENTS ....
IF STRAT HAS ANY " POSITIVE NEWS " WHAT SO EVER AND RELEASE IT... LITE THE FUSE AND WATCH SPRL ROCKET...
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The lists, at http://www.nyse.com/threshold,, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx,, http://amex.com/amextrader,, and elsewhere,reportedly show 73 securities on the NYSE list, only 9 of which are U.S. companies, 70 securities on the AMEX list, 22 individual companies, and 374 stocks on the NASDAQ list, including 96 on the exchange, 29 OTCBB and 254 on the Pink Sheets.
NASDAQ initially missed its Friday night deadline, and Dow Jones' (DJ) Wall Street Journal said the list is "far from complete as it stands." NASDAQ apparently has until noon today to complete the list.
"Example: If stock ABCD had 2,000,000 shares outstanding and was a fully reporting company as of 3 Jan 05, the MMs would need to fail to close out the open naked shorted position of .5% of 2,000,000 shares which would equate to 10,000 shares not being "completely" covered for 5 consecutive trading days. This means that the MMs would need to make sure they don't allow 5 consecutive days to happen where they leave any balance remaining of the 10,000 naked shorted shares as an open account of stock ABCD. They must 'completely' close all open accounts of naked shorted positions.
"When the supply of shares of a stock is zero, the supply is zero. It doesn't matter how you get there, be it by a naked short position or by the float being absorbed. This is where it all starts as a short squeeze will now be formed and grows as demand to purchase shares increase. This is where the misperception exists with Regulation Sho. People think that a new naked short position has to be created for a stock to be eligible for protection and rectification under Regulation Sho. This is not true. It's even better. All naked short positions of the past will not go away and must be dealt with. The clock begins ticking for covering, and means that any stock that has been naked shorted will automatically start out in a forced short squeeze mode that will only escalate the longer the MMs wait to cover.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
READ THIS GUYS!!!!!!!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Any buying pressure will cause the increase of the naked shorted position to grow to begin approaching the 5 day consecutive window of not getting covered by the MMs. After the 5 days transpire where the MMs have failed to deliver and close the open naked shorted position, that stock in which they failed to deliver will be placed on a Threshold Security List for the public to view. This is where it starts to get awesome," said the post.
"With no buying pressure, they won't have to cover as soon as one might have hoped as shares are sold exceeding the amount of shares being bought for stock ABCD. Still, if they don't cover the 'entire' naked short position for 5 consecutive days, stock ABCD will show up on the Threshold Security List for the public to view on 10 January.
"After such, the MMs have 13 days to close out the 'entire' naked shorted position or face being suspended and/or shut down from that security and other penalties to possibly put that MM out of business. The end result will still be the supply being zero and the stock would be forced to be traded correctly based on supply and demand with an already dried up supply. This means the creation of an instant short squeeze!"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
READ THIS GUYS!!!!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The poster said that the market makers will need to get the naked shorted shares out of circulation by increasing the bid to entice shareholders to sell. "The problem comes when they allow for the buying to outweigh the selling due to increased demand for the stock. As orders are placed to buy shares, they must be filled by the MMs. This will worsen their problem when nobody is selling. As the MMs make the mistake and allow for any stock to be placed on the Threshold Security List, it will publicly reveal where the MMs are already having a problem in covering. Us as shareholders will see this list and contribute with forcing the short squeezes for every stock on the list."
Regulation SHO Spotlight Suddenly Turns Bright Lights On Illegal Naked Short Selling
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=24896164&brk=1
Jan 10, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire) Regulation SHO, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission effort to make a Federal case out of illegal naked short selling, is here, and it is turning a broad spotlight on brokerages' failures to deliver stock certificates purchased from them by investors that appears to be much brighter and more intrusive than either the detractors had expected or perhaps the market makers used to minimal accountability had wanted.
As of press deadline almost 500 public companies, including Delta Air Lines (DAL), Taser International (TASR), Netflix (NFLX), and Isonics (ISON), had ended up on the new "threshold lists" maintained by the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ,. American Stock Exchange and other exchanges in response to the requirements of Regulation SHO, and companies on the list may turn into super-volatile trading opportunities this week and in the weeks ahead.
The lists, at http://www.nyse.com/threshold, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx, http://amex.com/amextrader, and elsewhere,reportedly show 73 securities on the NYSE list, only 9 of which are U.S. companies, 70 securities on the AMEX list, 22 individual companies, and 374 stocks on the NASDAQ list, including 96 on the exchange, 29 OTCBB and 254 on the Pink Sheets.
NASDAQ initially missed its Friday night deadline, and Dow Jones' (DJ) Wall Street Journal said the list is "far from complete as it stands." NASDAQ apparently has until noon today to complete the list.
Regulation SHO was advertised as a solution to what some have said could be the biggest scandal in the history of the securities industry, and regulators have drawn significant fire from both sides of the short selling camp, although "naked" short selling, where short sellers have almost unlimited abilities to sell securities many times over the number of shares outstanding, has long supposed to have been illegal.
The controversy has drawn both legislative and judicial proponents and opponents, and until the Tsunami took over the news, General Electric's (GE) "Dateline" was said to be on the verge of a major expose that will reportedly touch on possible collusion between brokerages that are purportedly impossibly behind in their fails to deliver certificates, the Depository Trust Corporation, whose "Stock Borrow Program" reportedly garners it almost a billion dollars a year in fees for what detractors call "counterfeit trades," and even the vaunted U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission itself, which makes a fee on every stock transaction, whether legitimate or not.
There is even a blog on the subject, at http://nakedshortingforum.blogspot.com/ .
A poster on the Yahoo (YHOO) message boards said that due to the new threshold rules, now being implemented, "the pressure is on the market makers to do what is right because all eyes will be placed on them. There will be many key Federal Authorities, economists, mathematicians, etc. that are already lined up to be performing certain studies for historical purposes. All the MMs have to do to not make matters worse is to do what is right and fix what they had broken for years with any fully reporting company that's a threshold security as soon as possible."
The poster noted that a stock must be fully reporting and considered a threshold security. A threshold security is one where .5% of its outstanding shares (OS) have been proven to have been naked shorted for 5 consecutive trading days and where the MMs have failed to close out those positions for five consecutive trading days.
"Example: If stock ABCD had 2,000,000 shares outstanding and was a fully reporting company as of 3 Jan 05, the MMs would need to fail to close out the open naked shorted position of .5% of 2,000,000 shares which would equate to 10,000 shares not being "completely" covered for 5 consecutive trading days. This means that the MMs would need to make sure they don't allow 5 consecutive days to happen where they leave any balance remaining of the 10,000 naked shorted shares as an open account of stock ABCD. They must 'completely' close all open accounts of naked shorted positions.
"When the supply of shares of a stock is zero, the supply is zero. It doesn't matter how you get there, be it by a naked short position or by the float being absorbed. This is where it all starts as a short squeeze will now be formed and grows as demand to purchase shares increase. This is where the misperception exists with Regulation Sho. People think that a new naked short position has to be created for a stock to be eligible for protection and rectification under Regulation Sho. This is not true. It's even better. All naked short positions of the past will not go away and must be dealt with. The clock begins ticking for covering, and means that any stock that has been naked shorted will automatically start out in a forced short squeeze mode that will only escalate the longer the MMs wait to cover.
"Any buying pressure will cause the increase of the naked shorted position to grow to begin approaching the 5 day consecutive window of not getting covered by the MMs. After the 5 days transpire where the MMs have failed to deliver and close the open naked shorted position, that stock in which they failed to deliver will be placed on a Threshold Security List for the public to view. This is where it starts to get awesome," said the post.
"With no buying pressure, they won't have to cover as soon as one might have hoped as shares are sold exceeding the amount of shares being bought for stock ABCD. Still, if they don't cover the 'entire' naked short position for 5 consecutive days, stock ABCD will show up on the Threshold Security List for the public to view on 10 January.
"After such, the MMs have 13 days to close out the 'entire' naked shorted position or face being suspended and/or shut down from that security and other penalties to possibly put that MM out of business. The end result will still be the supply being zero and the stock would be forced to be traded correctly based on supply and demand with an already dried up supply. This means the creation of an instant short squeeze!"
The poster said that the market makers will need to get the naked shorted shares out of circulation by increasing the bid to entice shareholders to sell. "The problem comes when they allow for the buying to outweigh the selling due to increased demand for the stock. As orders are placed to buy shares, they must be filled by the MMs. This will worsen their problem when nobody is selling. As the MMs make the mistake and allow for any stock to be placed on the Threshold Security List, it will publicly reveal where the MMs are already having a problem in covering. Us as shareholders will see this list and contribute with forcing the short squeezes for every stock on the list."
The recent Securities Industry of America symposium on Regulation SHO, which was supposed to curtail illegal naked short selling, only further deepened the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission divide as a dramatic ' some say startling ' new 22-page working paper, "Strategic Delivery Failures in U.S. Equity Markets," was published.
Moderators at the symposium included Steven Kessler, Associate General Counsel for Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), and Deborah Mittelman, Deputy Director of Global Compliance for Reuters' (RTRSY) Instinet. Panelists included Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Managing Director of Bear Stearns (BSC), and Robert O'Connor, Executive Director of the Law Department for Morgan Stanley (MWD).
The referenced working paper by University of New Mexico Professor Leslie Boni was initiated while the author was visiting financial economist at the SEC.
She termed the "failures to deliver," which litigants have called "counterfeiting," as being "pervasive."
The professor said that a whopping 42% of listed stocks at the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and AMEX, and 47% of unlisted stocks in the OTCBB and Pink Sheets had persistent fails of 5 days or more with 4% being above the SEC's threshold limits for failures.
The standard for settlement is presently 3 days with a concept proposal by the SEC in comment to reduce 3 day settlement to 1 day, noted Patch.
The economist pointed to a study conducted by Evans, Geczy, Musto, and Reed in 2003 that provided evidence that while the SRO's have buy-in requirements, such buy-ins almost never occur. She noted that an audit of one market maker showed that all or a portion of shares in 69,063 transactions during 1998-1999 were "fails to deliver."
"The market maker was bought-in on only 86 of these positions," she stated.
Dave Patch, editor of "Stockgate Today," said that his own review of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 finds no reference to "strategic failures." In fact, he said, Section 17a of the 1934 act "mandates prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of trades, and the admission of Strategic Failures is also in direct violation of Rule 15c6-1."
Rule 15c6-1 defines the settlement cycle for trades executed and states that no Broker Dealer may enter into a contract for the sale of a security whereby the payment for that security and the delivery of that security is greater than 3 business days. For market making activities there is a slight exemption from the delivery in a Bona Fide Market Making activity but as the SEC and SRO's have repeatedly stated, Bona Fide Market making is not simply supporting the best offer in a naked short sale without also representing the best bid or near best bid in a long trade. They must be actively making a market on both sides of trading to use the exemption, noted Patch.
Delegates to the September 20 annual SEC Forum on Small Business passed several resolutions on the issue to be submitted to the SEC. Among them were:
1. Extend Reg. SHO to apply to all publicly traded companies including non-reporting companies.
2. Recommend that the SEC Commissioners reinstate the proposed provision in Regulation SHO that prohibited a selling shareholder from withdrawing his/her profits from the trade until after delivery of the underlying sold shares.
3. SEC should require all SROs, and any clearinghouse for an SRO that receives securities into accounts for security holders to disclose the fact of the ability to loan the securities in the accounts and allow security holders to opt out of allowing the securities to be loaned.
Robert Shapiro, chair of Sonecon LLC, an economic advisory firm and former Under Secretary of Commerce from 1998 to 2001 and principal economic advisor to President William Clinton in his 1992 campaign, has expressed "serious concerns about the impact of the final version of Regulation SHO regarding short sales on the equity and transparency of our equity markets."
Shapiro holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and has been a Fellow of the National Bureau
of Economic Research, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard University.
Shapiro said the SEC is correct to broaden the terms of regulation of short sales, and applauded the section directing broker dealers to mark all equity orders as "long," "short" or "short exempt." More important, he said, the new "locate and delivery" requirements could substantially reduce stock manipulation carried out through naked short sales -- but only if those requirements are
widely applied and strictly enforced.
"Unfortunately, Regulation SHO does not meet either of these two standards. The troubling result is that the Regulation, in effect, establishes an official level of tolerance for unsettled or naked short sales," Shapiro charged.
Shapiro said he strongly concurs with the comments of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) on the draft rule, which said NASAA was "unable to determine why the Commission proposes to permit significant settlement failures at all. While there are instances when settlement may be legitimately delayed, existing regulations provide for extensions for settlement. If the Commission continues to allow settlement failures, it may well facilitate the harm that the proposal is designed to remedy."
"Until Regulation SHO, this economic counterfeiting has been facilitated by electronic record keeping and the apparent practice of the DTCC and its subsidiary National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) of often disregarding persistent unsettled short positions. With Regulation SHO, the SEC has provided its implicit imprimatur for the same practice in cases covering the vast majority of public companies and billions of dollars."
Shapiro urged the SEC to "reconsider the provisions of Regulations SHO and, at a minimum, apply the 'locate and delivery' requirements for threshold securities to all short sale transactions, and adopt a zero-tolerance policy for significant settlement failures. American investors should feel confident that the SEC will ensure the integrity of every equity transaction they undertake and fully protect their right to receive what they have paid for."
Twenty civil cases have now been filed by O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, Christian Smith & Jewell, and Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, LLP, all of Houston, Texas. The consortium of law firms, famed for the giant awards they obtained suing tobacco companies. The group recently brought suit against the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. for allegedly participating in the short-selling conspiracy through its "stock borrow" program which the attorneys say is nothing more than an illegal electronic printing press for stock certificates.
Lead counsel John O'Quinn said: "We are committed to the relentless pursuit of justice."
In comments to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, C. Austin Burrell, who is providing litigation support and research for the law firms, said that StockGate is more massive than anyone may have imagined. "Illegal Naked Short Selling has stripped hundreds of billions, if not TRILLIONS, of dollars from American investors," and have resulted in over 7,000 public companies having been "shorted out of existence over the past six years." Burrell said some experts believe as much as $1 trillion to $3 trillion has been lost to this practice.
He stated that the restrictions on short selling were deliberately put into the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 because of the first-hand evidence then available that the "sheer scale of the crashes was a direct result of intentional manipulation of US markets through abusive short selling by a massive conspiracy."
Burrell noted that the 65-lawyer team presided over by lead lawyers Wes Christian and John O'Quinn has uncovered more than 1,200 hedge fund and offshore accounts working through more than 150 broker-dealers and market makers in a joint cooperative effort to strip small and medium size public companies of their value.
According to lawyer Christian, et.al., the DTC is at the very heart of the problem, and has almost a billion dollars a year at stake in keeping the problem.
The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the SEC. The depository supposedly brings efficiency to the securities industry by retaining custody of some 2 million securities issues, effectively "dematerializing" most of them so that they exist only as electronic files rather than as countless pieces of paper. The depository also provides the services necessary for the maintenance of the securities it has in "custody."
According to the suit, the DTCC has an enormous pecuniary and conflicted interest in the entire short selling scandal through the huge income stream they were realizing from it every day. They have made literally billions of dollars lending individual real shares, in most cases over and over, getting a fee each time they made a journal entry in the "Stock Borrow Program."
The Stock Borrow Program was purportedly set up to facilitate expedited clearance of stock trades. Somewhere along the line, the DTCC became aware that if it could lend a single share an unlimited number of times, it could collect a fee each time, according to Burrell. "There are numerous cases of a single share being lent ten or many more times," giving rise to the complaint that the DTCC has been electronically counterfeiting just as was done via printed certificates before the Crash.
"Such re-hypothecation has in effect made the potential 'float' in a single company's shares virtually unlimited and the term 'float' meaningless. Shares could be electronically created/counterfeited/kited without a registration statement being filed, and without the underlying company having any knowledge such shares are being sold or even in existence." Burrell said the Christian/O'Quinn lawsuits will seek to show that the "counterfeiting/creation of unregistered shares is a specific violation of the Securities Act of 1933, barring the 'Sale of Unregistered Securities'."
One lawsuit alleges that the DTC has a colossal disincentive to stop the "stock borrow" program, booking revenues from services of $425,416,000 and similarly, the NSCC deriving revenues of $293,133,000.
Further, the suit alleges that "open positions" resulting from this activity at the close of business on December 31, 2003, "approximated $3,025,467,000" due to NSCC, and $2,303,717,000 due by NSCC, and unsettled positions of $721,750,000 for securities borrowed through the NSCC's "Stock Borrow Program." The largely unregulated DTC has become something of a defacto Czar presiding over the entire U.S. markets system, wielding more day-to-day influence and control than the SEC, the NASD and NASDAQ combined.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.'s two preferred shareholders are the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD, a regulatory agency that also owns the NASDAQ (NDAQ) and the embattled American Stock Exchange!
In an era when corporate governance is the primary interest for the SEC and state regulators, the DTCC is hardly a role model. Its 21 directors represent a virtual litany of conflict:
They include Bradley Abelow, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (GS); Jonathan E. Beyman, Chief Information Officer, Lehman Brothers (LEH); Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Executive Vice President, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank (C); Michael C. Bodson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (MWD); Gary Bullock, Global Head of Logistics, Infrastructure, UBS Investment Bank (UBS); Stephen P. Casper, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc.; Jill M. Considine,Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC);
Also, Paul F. Costello, President, Business Services Group, Wachovia Securities (WB); John W. Cummings, Senior Vice President & Head of Global Technology & Services, Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER); Donald F. Donahue, Chief Operating Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Norman Eaker, General Partner, Edward Jones; George Hrabovsky, President, Alliance Global Investors Service; Catherine R. Kinney, President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, New York Stock Exchange; Thomas J. McCrossan, Executive Vice President, State Street Corporation (STT); Eileen K. Murray, Managing Director, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSR); James P. Palermo, Vice Chairman, Mellon Financial Corporation (MEL); Thomas J. Perna, Senior Executive Vice President, Financial Companies Services Sector of The Bank of New York (BNY); Ronald Purpora, Chief Executive Officer, Garban LLC; Douglas Shulman, President, Regulatory Services and Operations, NASD; and Thompson M. Swayne, Executive Vice President, JPMorgan Chase (JPM).
In their comments to the SEC regarding Regulation SHO in January, the 50 state regulators, through their association, the North American Association of Securities Administrators (NASAA) issued what many consider to be a strong warning that if the DTC is not dealt with in the final regulations, state regulators such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may step to the plate.
In what many considered to have been explosive comments, Ralph Lambiase, NASAA president and Director of the Connecticut Division of Securities, warned "NASAA urges the Commission to reconsider its stance regarding the role of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (the DTC). As a threshold matter, NASAA believes that the Commission should explicitly prohibit the DTC from lending more shares of a security than it actually holds. The ability of the overall proposed rule would be severely impared unless the Commission undertakes to implement such a prohibition."
The new "threshold lists" could make for an interesting January, and possibly, an interesting 2005.
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.FinancialWire).net
FinancialWire) is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
Listen to StreetSignals" (Investrend "ON-THE-AIR") "live" Saturdays from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Business TalkRadio Network stations coast-to-coast, or right now on the web at http://www.StreetSignals.com
The FinancialWire) NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: http://www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268
http://www.financialwire.net
(C) 2005 financialwire.net, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 1997-2004 MarketWatch.com, Inc.
pull your sells and get on the bid
"Example: If stock ABCD had 2,000,000 shares outstanding and was a fully reporting company as of 3 Jan 05, the MMs would need to fail to close out the open naked shorted position of .5% of 2,000,000 shares which would equate to 10,000 shares not being "completely" covered for 5 consecutive trading days. This means that the MMs would need to make sure they don't allow 5 consecutive days to happen where they leave any balance remaining of the 10,000 naked shorted shares as an open account of stock ABCD. They must 'completely' close all open accounts of naked shorted positions.
"When the supply of shares of a stock is zero, the supply is zero. It doesn't matter how you get there, be it by a naked short position or by the float being absorbed. This is where it all starts as a short squeeze will now be formed and grows as demand to purchase shares increase. This is where the misperception exists with Regulation Sho. People think that a new naked short position has to be created for a stock to be eligible for protection and rectification under Regulation Sho. This is not true. It's even better. All naked short positions of the past will not go away and must be dealt with. The clock begins ticking for covering, and means that any stock that has been naked shorted will automatically start out in a forced short squeeze mode that will only escalate the longer the MMs wait to cover.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
READ THIS GUYS!!!!!!!!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Any buying pressure will cause the increase of the naked shorted position to grow to begin approaching the 5 day consecutive window of not getting covered by the MMs. After the 5 days transpire where the MMs have failed to deliver and close the open naked shorted position, that stock in which they failed to deliver will be placed on a Threshold Security List for the public to view. This is where it starts to get awesome," said the post.
"With no buying pressure, they won't have to cover as soon as one might have hoped as shares are sold exceeding the amount of shares being bought for stock ABCD. Still, if they don't cover the 'entire' naked short position for 5 consecutive days, stock ABCD will show up on the Threshold Security List for the public to view on 10 January.
"After such, the MMs have 13 days to close out the 'entire' naked shorted position or face being suspended and/or shut down from that security and other penalties to possibly put that MM out of business. The end result will still be the supply being zero and the stock would be forced to be traded correctly based on supply and demand with an already dried up supply. This means the creation of an instant short squeeze!"
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
READ THIS GUYS!!!!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The poster said that the market makers will need to get the naked shorted shares out of circulation by increasing the bid to entice shareholders to sell. "The problem comes when they allow for the buying to outweigh the selling due to increased demand for the stock. As orders are placed to buy shares, they must be filled by the MMs. This will worsen their problem when nobody is selling. As the MMs make the mistake and allow for any stock to be placed on the Threshold Security List, it will publicly reveal where the MMs are already having a problem in covering. Us as shareholders will see this list and contribute with forcing the short squeezes for every stock on the list."
exposed in the media
Regulation SHO Spotlight Suddenly Turns Bright Lights On Illegal Naked Short Selling
http://www.investors.com/breakingnews.asp?journalid=24896164&brk=1
Jan 10, 2005 (financialwire.net via COMTEX) -- (FinancialWire) Regulation SHO, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission effort to make a Federal case out of illegal naked short selling, is here, and it is turning a broad spotlight on brokerages' failures to deliver stock certificates purchased from them by investors that appears to be much brighter and more intrusive than either the detractors had expected or perhaps the market makers used to minimal accountability had wanted.
As of press deadline almost 500 public companies, including Delta Air Lines (DAL), Taser International (TASR), Netflix (NFLX), and Isonics (ISON), had ended up on the new "threshold lists" maintained by the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ,. American Stock Exchange and other exchanges in response to the requirements of Regulation SHO, and companies on the list may turn into super-volatile trading opportunities this week and in the weeks ahead.
The lists, at http://www.nyse.com/threshold, http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx, http://amex.com/amextrader, and elsewhere,reportedly show 73 securities on the NYSE list, only 9 of which are U.S. companies, 70 securities on the AMEX list, 22 individual companies, and 374 stocks on the NASDAQ list, including 96 on the exchange, 29 OTCBB and 254 on the Pink Sheets.
NASDAQ initially missed its Friday night deadline, and Dow Jones' (DJ) Wall Street Journal said the list is "far from complete as it stands." NASDAQ apparently has until noon today to complete the list.
Regulation SHO was advertised as a solution to what some have said could be the biggest scandal in the history of the securities industry, and regulators have drawn significant fire from both sides of the short selling camp, although "naked" short selling, where short sellers have almost unlimited abilities to sell securities many times over the number of shares outstanding, has long supposed to have been illegal.
The controversy has drawn both legislative and judicial proponents and opponents, and until the Tsunami took over the news, General Electric's (GE) "Dateline" was said to be on the verge of a major expose that will reportedly touch on possible collusion between brokerages that are purportedly impossibly behind in their fails to deliver certificates, the Depository Trust Corporation, whose "Stock Borrow Program" reportedly garners it almost a billion dollars a year in fees for what detractors call "counterfeit trades," and even the vaunted U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission itself, which makes a fee on every stock transaction, whether legitimate or not.
There is even a blog on the subject, at http://nakedshortingforum.blogspot.com/ .
A poster on the Yahoo (YHOO) message boards said that due to the new threshold rules, now being implemented, "the pressure is on the market makers to do what is right because all eyes will be placed on them. There will be many key Federal Authorities, economists, mathematicians, etc. that are already lined up to be performing certain studies for historical purposes. All the MMs have to do to not make matters worse is to do what is right and fix what they had broken for years with any fully reporting company that's a threshold security as soon as possible."
The poster noted that a stock must be fully reporting and considered a threshold security. A threshold security is one where .5% of its outstanding shares (OS) have been proven to have been naked shorted for 5 consecutive trading days and where the MMs have failed to close out those positions for five consecutive trading days.
"Example: If stock ABCD had 2,000,000 shares outstanding and was a fully reporting company as of 3 Jan 05, the MMs would need to fail to close out the open naked shorted position of .5% of 2,000,000 shares which would equate to 10,000 shares not being "completely" covered for 5 consecutive trading days. This means that the MMs would need to make sure they don't allow 5 consecutive days to happen where they leave any balance remaining of the 10,000 naked shorted shares as an open account of stock ABCD. They must 'completely' close all open accounts of naked shorted positions.
"When the supply of shares of a stock is zero, the supply is zero. It doesn't matter how you get there, be it by a naked short position or by the float being absorbed. This is where it all starts as a short squeeze will now be formed and grows as demand to purchase shares increase. This is where the misperception exists with Regulation Sho. People think that a new naked short position has to be created for a stock to be eligible for protection and rectification under Regulation Sho. This is not true. It's even better. All naked short positions of the past will not go away and must be dealt with. The clock begins ticking for covering, and means that any stock that has been naked shorted will automatically start out in a forced short squeeze mode that will only escalate the longer the MMs wait to cover.
"Any buying pressure will cause the increase of the naked shorted position to grow to begin approaching the 5 day consecutive window of not getting covered by the MMs. After the 5 days transpire where the MMs have failed to deliver and close the open naked shorted position, that stock in which they failed to deliver will be placed on a Threshold Security List for the public to view. This is where it starts to get awesome," said the post.
"With no buying pressure, they won't have to cover as soon as one might have hoped as shares are sold exceeding the amount of shares being bought for stock ABCD. Still, if they don't cover the 'entire' naked short position for 5 consecutive days, stock ABCD will show up on the Threshold Security List for the public to view on 10 January.
"After such, the MMs have 13 days to close out the 'entire' naked shorted position or face being suspended and/or shut down from that security and other penalties to possibly put that MM out of business. The end result will still be the supply being zero and the stock would be forced to be traded correctly based on supply and demand with an already dried up supply. This means the creation of an instant short squeeze!"
The poster said that the market makers will need to get the naked shorted shares out of circulation by increasing the bid to entice shareholders to sell. "The problem comes when they allow for the buying to outweigh the selling due to increased demand for the stock. As orders are placed to buy shares, they must be filled by the MMs. This will worsen their problem when nobody is selling. As the MMs make the mistake and allow for any stock to be placed on the Threshold Security List, it will publicly reveal where the MMs are already having a problem in covering. Us as shareholders will see this list and contribute with forcing the short squeezes for every stock on the list."
The recent Securities Industry of America symposium on Regulation SHO, which was supposed to curtail illegal naked short selling, only further deepened the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission divide as a dramatic ' some say startling ' new 22-page working paper, "Strategic Delivery Failures in U.S. Equity Markets," was published.
Moderators at the symposium included Steven Kessler, Associate General Counsel for Goldman Sachs & Co. (GS), and Deborah Mittelman, Deputy Director of Global Compliance for Reuters' (RTRSY) Instinet. Panelists included Jeffrey Bernstein, Senior Managing Director of Bear Stearns (BSC), and Robert O'Connor, Executive Director of the Law Department for Morgan Stanley (MWD).
The referenced working paper by University of New Mexico Professor Leslie Boni was initiated while the author was visiting financial economist at the SEC.
She termed the "failures to deliver," which litigants have called "counterfeiting," as being "pervasive."
The professor said that a whopping 42% of listed stocks at the New York Stock Exchange, NASDAQ and AMEX, and 47% of unlisted stocks in the OTCBB and Pink Sheets had persistent fails of 5 days or more with 4% being above the SEC's threshold limits for failures.
The standard for settlement is presently 3 days with a concept proposal by the SEC in comment to reduce 3 day settlement to 1 day, noted Patch.
The economist pointed to a study conducted by Evans, Geczy, Musto, and Reed in 2003 that provided evidence that while the SRO's have buy-in requirements, such buy-ins almost never occur. She noted that an audit of one market maker showed that all or a portion of shares in 69,063 transactions during 1998-1999 were "fails to deliver."
"The market maker was bought-in on only 86 of these positions," she stated.
Dave Patch, editor of "Stockgate Today," said that his own review of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 finds no reference to "strategic failures." In fact, he said, Section 17a of the 1934 act "mandates prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of trades, and the admission of Strategic Failures is also in direct violation of Rule 15c6-1."
Rule 15c6-1 defines the settlement cycle for trades executed and states that no Broker Dealer may enter into a contract for the sale of a security whereby the payment for that security and the delivery of that security is greater than 3 business days. For market making activities there is a slight exemption from the delivery in a Bona Fide Market Making activity but as the SEC and SRO's have repeatedly stated, Bona Fide Market making is not simply supporting the best offer in a naked short sale without also representing the best bid or near best bid in a long trade. They must be actively making a market on both sides of trading to use the exemption, noted Patch.
Delegates to the September 20 annual SEC Forum on Small Business passed several resolutions on the issue to be submitted to the SEC. Among them were:
1. Extend Reg. SHO to apply to all publicly traded companies including non-reporting companies.
2. Recommend that the SEC Commissioners reinstate the proposed provision in Regulation SHO that prohibited a selling shareholder from withdrawing his/her profits from the trade until after delivery of the underlying sold shares.
3. SEC should require all SROs, and any clearinghouse for an SRO that receives securities into accounts for security holders to disclose the fact of the ability to loan the securities in the accounts and allow security holders to opt out of allowing the securities to be loaned.
Robert Shapiro, chair of Sonecon LLC, an economic advisory firm and former Under Secretary of Commerce from 1998 to 2001 and principal economic advisor to President William Clinton in his 1992 campaign, has expressed "serious concerns about the impact of the final version of Regulation SHO regarding short sales on the equity and transparency of our equity markets."
Shapiro holds a Ph.D. from Harvard University and has been a Fellow of the National Bureau
of Economic Research, the Brookings Institution, and Harvard University.
Shapiro said the SEC is correct to broaden the terms of regulation of short sales, and applauded the section directing broker dealers to mark all equity orders as "long," "short" or "short exempt." More important, he said, the new "locate and delivery" requirements could substantially reduce stock manipulation carried out through naked short sales -- but only if those requirements are
widely applied and strictly enforced.
"Unfortunately, Regulation SHO does not meet either of these two standards. The troubling result is that the Regulation, in effect, establishes an official level of tolerance for unsettled or naked short sales," Shapiro charged.
Shapiro said he strongly concurs with the comments of the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) on the draft rule, which said NASAA was "unable to determine why the Commission proposes to permit significant settlement failures at all. While there are instances when settlement may be legitimately delayed, existing regulations provide for extensions for settlement. If the Commission continues to allow settlement failures, it may well facilitate the harm that the proposal is designed to remedy."
"Until Regulation SHO, this economic counterfeiting has been facilitated by electronic record keeping and the apparent practice of the DTCC and its subsidiary National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC) of often disregarding persistent unsettled short positions. With Regulation SHO, the SEC has provided its implicit imprimatur for the same practice in cases covering the vast majority of public companies and billions of dollars."
Shapiro urged the SEC to "reconsider the provisions of Regulations SHO and, at a minimum, apply the 'locate and delivery' requirements for threshold securities to all short sale transactions, and adopt a zero-tolerance policy for significant settlement failures. American investors should feel confident that the SEC will ensure the integrity of every equity transaction they undertake and fully protect their right to receive what they have paid for."
Twenty civil cases have now been filed by O'Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle, Christian Smith & Jewell, and Heard, Robins, Cloud, Lubel & Greenwood, LLP, all of Houston, Texas. The consortium of law firms, famed for the giant awards they obtained suing tobacco companies. The group recently brought suit against the Depository Trust and Clearing Corp. for allegedly participating in the short-selling conspiracy through its "stock borrow" program which the attorneys say is nothing more than an illegal electronic printing press for stock certificates.
Lead counsel John O'Quinn said: "We are committed to the relentless pursuit of justice."
In comments to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, C. Austin Burrell, who is providing litigation support and research for the law firms, said that StockGate is more massive than anyone may have imagined. "Illegal Naked Short Selling has stripped hundreds of billions, if not TRILLIONS, of dollars from American investors," and have resulted in over 7,000 public companies having been "shorted out of existence over the past six years." Burrell said some experts believe as much as $1 trillion to $3 trillion has been lost to this practice.
He stated that the restrictions on short selling were deliberately put into the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934 because of the first-hand evidence then available that the "sheer scale of the crashes was a direct result of intentional manipulation of US markets through abusive short selling by a massive conspiracy."
Burrell noted that the 65-lawyer team presided over by lead lawyers Wes Christian and John O'Quinn has uncovered more than 1,200 hedge fund and offshore accounts working through more than 150 broker-dealers and market makers in a joint cooperative effort to strip small and medium size public companies of their value.
According to lawyer Christian, et.al., the DTC is at the very heart of the problem, and has almost a billion dollars a year at stake in keeping the problem.
The Depository Trust Company (DTC) is a member of the U.S. Federal Reserve System, a limited-purpose trust company under New York State banking law and a registered clearing agency with the SEC. The depository supposedly brings efficiency to the securities industry by retaining custody of some 2 million securities issues, effectively "dematerializing" most of them so that they exist only as electronic files rather than as countless pieces of paper. The depository also provides the services necessary for the maintenance of the securities it has in "custody."
According to the suit, the DTCC has an enormous pecuniary and conflicted interest in the entire short selling scandal through the huge income stream they were realizing from it every day. They have made literally billions of dollars lending individual real shares, in most cases over and over, getting a fee each time they made a journal entry in the "Stock Borrow Program."
The Stock Borrow Program was purportedly set up to facilitate expedited clearance of stock trades. Somewhere along the line, the DTCC became aware that if it could lend a single share an unlimited number of times, it could collect a fee each time, according to Burrell. "There are numerous cases of a single share being lent ten or many more times," giving rise to the complaint that the DTCC has been electronically counterfeiting just as was done via printed certificates before the Crash.
"Such re-hypothecation has in effect made the potential 'float' in a single company's shares virtually unlimited and the term 'float' meaningless. Shares could be electronically created/counterfeited/kited without a registration statement being filed, and without the underlying company having any knowledge such shares are being sold or even in existence." Burrell said the Christian/O'Quinn lawsuits will seek to show that the "counterfeiting/creation of unregistered shares is a specific violation of the Securities Act of 1933, barring the 'Sale of Unregistered Securities'."
One lawsuit alleges that the DTC has a colossal disincentive to stop the "stock borrow" program, booking revenues from services of $425,416,000 and similarly, the NSCC deriving revenues of $293,133,000.
Further, the suit alleges that "open positions" resulting from this activity at the close of business on December 31, 2003, "approximated $3,025,467,000" due to NSCC, and $2,303,717,000 due by NSCC, and unsettled positions of $721,750,000 for securities borrowed through the NSCC's "Stock Borrow Program." The largely unregulated DTC has become something of a defacto Czar presiding over the entire U.S. markets system, wielding more day-to-day influence and control than the SEC, the NASD and NASDAQ combined.
The Depository Trust and Clearing Corp.'s two preferred shareholders are the New York Stock Exchange and the NASD, a regulatory agency that also owns the NASDAQ (NDAQ) and the embattled American Stock Exchange!
In an era when corporate governance is the primary interest for the SEC and state regulators, the DTCC is hardly a role model. Its 21 directors represent a virtual litany of conflict:
They include Bradley Abelow, Managing Director, Goldman Sachs (GS); Jonathan E. Beyman, Chief Information Officer, Lehman Brothers (LEH); Frank J. Bisignano, Chief Administrative Officer and Senior Executive Vice President, Citigroup / Solomon Smith Barney's Corporate Investment Bank (C); Michael C. Bodson, Managing Director, Morgan Stanley (MWD); Gary Bullock, Global Head of Logistics, Infrastructure, UBS Investment Bank (UBS); Stephen P. Casper, Managing Director and Chief Operating Officer, Fischer Francis Trees & Watts, Inc.; Jill M. Considine,Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC);
Also, Paul F. Costello, President, Business Services Group, Wachovia Securities (WB); John W. Cummings, Senior Vice President & Head of Global Technology & Services, Merrill Lynch & Co. (MER); Donald F. Donahue, Chief Operating Officer, The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (DTCC); Norman Eaker, General Partner, Edward Jones; George Hrabovsky, President, Alliance Global Investors Service; Catherine R. Kinney, President and Co-Chief Operating Officer, New York Stock Exchange; Thomas J. McCrossan, Executive Vice President, State Street Corporation (STT); Eileen K. Murray, Managing Director, Credit Suisse First Boston (CSR); James P. Palermo, Vice Chairman, Mellon Financial Corporation (MEL); Thomas J. Perna, Senior Executive Vice President, Financial Companies Services Sector of The Bank of New York (BNY); Ronald Purpora, Chief Executive Officer, Garban LLC; Douglas Shulman, President, Regulatory Services and Operations, NASD; and Thompson M. Swayne, Executive Vice President, JPMorgan Chase (JPM).
In their comments to the SEC regarding Regulation SHO in January, the 50 state regulators, through their association, the North American Association of Securities Administrators (NASAA) issued what many consider to be a strong warning that if the DTC is not dealt with in the final regulations, state regulators such as New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer may step to the plate.
In what many considered to have been explosive comments, Ralph Lambiase, NASAA president and Director of the Connecticut Division of Securities, warned "NASAA urges the Commission to reconsider its stance regarding the role of the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation (the DTC). As a threshold matter, NASAA believes that the Commission should explicitly prohibit the DTC from lending more shares of a security than it actually holds. The ability of the overall proposed rule would be severely impared unless the Commission undertakes to implement such a prohibition."
The new "threshold lists" could make for an interesting January, and possibly, an interesting 2005.
For up-to-the-minute news, features and links click on http://www.FinancialWire).net
FinancialWire) is an independent, proprietary news service of Investrend Information, a division of Investrend Communications, Inc. It is not a press release service and receives no compensation for its news or opinions. Other divisions of Investrend, however, provide shareholder empowerment platforms such as forums, independent research and webcasting. For more information or to receive the FirstAlert daily summary of news, commentary, research reports, webcasts, events and conference calls, click on http://www.investrend.com/contact.asp
Listen to StreetSignals" (Investrend "ON-THE-AIR") "live" Saturdays from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. on Business TalkRadio Network stations coast-to-coast, or right now on the web at http://www.StreetSignals.com
The FinancialWire) NewsFeed is now available in multiple formats to your site or desktop, free. Click on: http://www.investrend.com/XmlFeeds?level=268
http://www.financialwire.net
(C) 2005 financialwire.net, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 1997-2004 MarketWatch.com, Inc.
SAME ADVISE ON HCCF !!!
Posted by: barrels
In reply to: barrels who wrote msg# 2686
Date:1/8/2005 11:47:50 PM
Post #of 2688
GUYS AND GALS , IF YOU HAVE ANY SELL ORDERS IN ON SPRL ...PULL THEM !!! ... WE KNOW THERE IS A " NAKED SHORT' AGAINST SPRL...
AND WE ALSO KNOW THEY HAVE TO " COVER " THESE SHARES!!!
PULLL ALL SELL ORDERS!!!
WE GOT THEM BY THE #####
LETS MAKE THEM PAY......
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK -- U.S. stock exchanges will begin publishing so-called threshold lists Friday evening as part of a broad effort by securities regulators to curb failures to deliver stock on settlement date.
Under a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation known as Reg SHO, all exchanges have to make public daily lists of securities with large amounts of failure to deliver. Reg SHO went into effect on Monday.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
These lists will be closely watched by market participants because once a security gets on one, it will become harder and more expensive to sell short the stock and that will likely translate in a higher trading price.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PULL ALL SELL ORDERS !!!
SPRL
GUYS AND GALS , IF YOU HAVE ANY SELL ORDERS IN ON SPRL ...PULL THEM !!! ... WE KNOW THERE IS A " NAKED SHORT' AGAINST SPRL...
AND WE ALSO KNOW THEY HAVE TO " COVER " THESE SHARES!!!
PULLL ALL SELL ORDERS!!!
WE GOT THEM BY THE #####
LETS MAKE THEM PAY......
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK -- U.S. stock exchanges will begin publishing so-called threshold lists Friday evening as part of a broad effort by securities regulators to curb failures to deliver stock on settlement date.
Under a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation known as Reg SHO, all exchanges have to make public daily lists of securities with large amounts of failure to deliver. Reg SHO went into effect on Monday.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
These lists will be closely watched by market participants because once a security gets on one, it will become harder and more expensive to sell short the stock and that will likely translate in a higher trading price.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PULL ALL SELL ORDERS !!!
PULL YOUR SELL ORDERS...
MAKE THEM CROOKS PAY
SEE YA MONDAY
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reg SHO, among other things, aims to have these failed trades settled, mostly by clearly identifying securities with a high threshold of failed deliveries. Under Reg SHO, threshold securities are defined by two criteria: There are at least 10,000 shares in aggregate failed deliveries for the security for five consecutive settlement days and
----------------------------------------------------------------
these fails constitute 0.5% or more of outstanding shares. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a security for 13 consecutive settlement days will have to execute mandatory buy-in to clean the fails.
----------------------------------------------------------------
If the broker cannot buy-in the security, it and its clients will be restricted from further selling short the security without a "pre-borrow agreement."
PULL ALL SELL ORDERS NOW..
MAKE THEM PAY !!!!!
WE MADE THE " SHO"
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK -- U.S. stock exchanges will begin publishing so-called threshold lists Friday evening as part of a broad effort by securities regulators to curb failures to deliver stock on settlement date.
Under a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation known as Reg SHO, all exchanges have to make public daily lists of securities with large amounts of failure to deliver. Reg SHO went into effect on Monday.
These lists will be closely watched by market participants because once a security gets on one, it will become harder and more expensive to sell short the stock and that will likely translate in a higher trading price.
Friday evening's lists will be the first clear indication of the potential impact of Reg SHO on the market, especially when it comes to the stock of thinly traded and more heavily shorted small-cap companies.
Representatives for the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Exchange, Archipelago and the Chicago Stock Exchange say that the exchanges are ready and will publish their respective lists on their Web sites sometime between market close and midnight.
The web addresses for the lists are as follows:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
-NYSE: http://www.nyse.. com/threshold
-AMEX: http://amex.. com/amextrader
-ARCA: http://www.tradearca.. com/traders/regsho_th.asp
-Chicago: http://www.chx.. com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nasdaq's threshold list is the one that is the most anticipated by traders and investors since it is likely to include the largest number of securities. Nasdaq's list will include securities trading on its national market, small-cap market and on the Over-The-Counter market. The Nasdaq list will also include securities trading on the Pink Sheets that under SEC rules are "reporting companies." Non-reporting Pink Sheets companies are not covered by Reg SHO. But NASD is working on a SHO-like rule that would cover non-reporting companies trading on the Pink Sheets.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
According to a Nasdaq spokeswoman there are about 1,300 reporting Pink Sheets companies. But only 235 of those, for which the exchange has current information on shares outstanding, are currently subject to Reg SHO threshold requirements. There are about 3,500 securities trading on Nasdaq's national and small-cap markets.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
John Bosey, a lawyer for the Boston Stock Exchange, said the exchange will comply with the SEC regulation but he wasn't sure whether the exchange would publish a threshold list by midnight.
A spokesman for the Chicago Exchange wasn't immediately able to say whether the exchange would publish a list or where it would be located. A spokesperson for the National Stock Exchange, formerly the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, said the exchange is not required to publish a threshold list because it has no original listing.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of a decrease in the stock price. Under existing NASD and NYSE rules, firms generally have to locate securities before accepting a short sale, a process known as affirmative determination. Brokerage firms also have to borrow a security or be able to provide it for delivery on demand on settlement date, three days after the transaction.
IMPORTANT !!!
1.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If a firm cannot deliver the securities by settlement, a failed trade is entered into the Continuous Net Settlement (CNS), a system administered by the National Securities Clearing Corp., or NSCC.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IMPORTANT !
2.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reg SHO, among other things, aims to have these failed trades settled, mostly by clearly identifying securities with a high threshold of failed deliveries. Under Reg SHO, threshold securities are defined by two criteria: There are at least 10,000 shares in aggregate failed deliveries for the security for five consecutive settlement days and these fails constitute 0.5% or more of outstanding shares. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a security for 13 consecutive settlement days will have to execute mandatory buy-in to clean the fails. If the broker cannot buy-in the security, it and its clients will be restricted from further selling short the security without a "pre-borrow agreement."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist and one of four who write the "In The Money" feature. Most recently, she shared a 2003 Best of Business Award from the Society of Business Editors and Writers for her role in Dow Jones' team coverage of the Canary Capital mutual fund trading scandal.)
-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2074; carol.remond@dowjones.com
IMMEDIATE CALL TO COVER ALL SHORT SHARES
On January 3rd, Regulation SHO went into effect. As a result, all securities where a deficiency exists in locating shares to short will now be called to cover.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Regulation also states that any security is deficient if more than 1/2 of 1% (10000 minimum)of its outstanding shares is held in a state of "failure to locate" and "failure to deliver". Essentially, they are naked short shares. Shares that do not exist.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Tonite, the first list of Nasdaq stocks falling into this category was released and it contains some 3400 stocks and/or ETF's. That is just on Nasdaq alone. That is virtually all Nasdaq related stocks that are traded with any frequency.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
This only stands to reason though. Since the Bubble of 1999, rampant naked short selling has been going on in our markets daily. It is estimated that over 500 billion shares are held as naked short shares against our markets. Over $5 trillion has been sucked out of our economy by the crooked market makers, brokerages, and naked short selling practices of some 6000 boutique hedge funds.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
TIME TO PAY "crooked market makers, brokerages, and naked short selling practices of some 6000 boutique hedge funds."
I DONT FEEL ONE BIT OF REMORSE!!!!!!!!!!!!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The implications of this present situation are astronomical. The new SHO regulation says that these "deficiencies" must be covered immediately. Those companies appearing on the list have 5 days to cover those shares that are not authorized where there is a failure to locate. Many stocks have untold millions...if not billions of naked short shares outstanding. Many of them are easily more that the outstanding shares of the company.
It is easily understanable then, why it could take 2-3 years of solid, non-stop short covering to eliminate all the deficiencies in this market. Could you imagine a 2-3 year short squeeze? That is the immediate implication. By failing to immediately cover these positions, market makers and brokerages face untold fines, sancture, license revocation, and jail time.
The immediate panic to cover could easily cause a stampede on the markets...particularly the Nasdaq. Virtually all shares held short by anyone are naked short shares. Any shares held by anyone beyond the shares authorized by the company are naked short shares. They are ALL a "failure to locate". While some Market Makers my be exempt, it will not matter. The stampede will force the hedge funds to begin buying with a frenzy. Retail shorts will be lucky to get a fill anywhere.
Market Makers are going to take care of themselves first no matter what. They have 5 days to cover and eliminate the deficiencies. The retail short trader now has an immediate call to cover. It is NOT I'll cover when I want to. It is NOT I'll cover if the price goes up. It is cover or have your shares covered for you.
Many Market Makers will drive up the prices to effect more shorting at hugely inflated prices. All current short shares held will be in an immediate call, so there is no "averaging up" as it were.
You could easily see the largest short squeeze in history happen as early as Monday. Stocks could open up 2, 3, or 5 times their present value as the stampede to cover begins. It will be "cover at any price" as the retail investor will be forced to cover first. These deficiencies MUST be eliminated immediately. If not, it tells the world that our markets are as crooked as they come if they didn't know it already. It also says the SEC invokes a rule with no intention of enforcing it.
Every short seller now faces losing everything and even money they wouldn't even dream of making. Charts and company values will have no meaning. They've coiled the spring so tightly for the past 4 years that every short seller stands to lose millions...if not billions of dollars. Buy stops will be taken out everywhere. Panic short covering at every turn.
After the run over 5000 on the Nasdaq, it was the only way they could keep from losing everything. That is why the Nasdaq fell to 1100 after that run...naked shorting. They have never covered those shares. They MUST be made to do so NOW!
Now, the shorts have taken a complacent attitude that they can keep right on shorting and take every stock to zero. This new Regulation makes that the furthest thing from reality. In fact, it now brings the other end of the spectrum into play just like 1999. It happened once. It can happen again.
No more shares available to short. No short can "average-up". No more shorting into the bids without an uptick. Immediate calls to cover on over 3000 stocks just on the Nasdaq alone. Shorts will gladly pay 2 times the present value of a stock just to lose it all so they can avoid losing more money than they can ever dream of making or finding.
Now, what can you do to help? That is simple. You have a chance to make untold riches at the expense of anyone who holds a stock short. We have to tell the world that it is about to happen. Since most of the media is being paid by various groups from brokerages to off-shore hedges for their biased reporting and ###### against companies, they will not listen. But somebody will. Just as much as the media is biased, there is another that loves to sensationalize. Bill it as "The Largest Short Squeeze In History". Send a letter to your local media outlet. Contact Elliot Spitzer if you want. Spread the word to every trader you know. Post this note on every message board you can find if you wish. Everyone needs to know that now is the time to buy and take advantage of the panic short covering across all markets.
Remember what my earlier note said though? All traders MUST get their accounts back to a balance that is below their cash value. In other words, no margin balance of any kind. Once you are there, if you are not already, contact your broker immediately and tell them you want it in writing that your shares will NOT be made available for shorting. Even if you have a margin account,
just do not hold any DEBIT balance over the actual cash in your account. Then, the positions you hold cannot be shorted against. This will only accentuate the lack of liquidity the shorts will have to cover into. It will be tempting to buy on margin into the short covering frenzy. That is the worst thing you can do. You have to sit on your hands. Once you even have a penny of margin balance, all the shares of everything you own are now available to someone else to short against you.
So, your job this weekend is to contact anyone with an e-mail address. Spread the word that The Largest Short Squeeze In History Is About To Take Place. We need to show the world that this market is by and for the American people and not for the crooks who make a market in it, or trade in it illegally with shares that don't even exist.
Here is the FIRST list of all the companies on Nasdaq that have a deficiency. Forward this link to all you send your note to:
http: //www. nasdaqtrader .com/dynamic/SymDir/nasdaq .txt
Do not believe what you read from these boards, Half are written by people who dont have a clue just wait and see. The first report came out and said Only co. that file. Now it looks like everyone. And no one is being grand fathered
DKGOSS HOPE THIS HELPS.. IF NOT JUST ASK ILL BE GLAD TO EXPLAIN IT FUTHER
REMEEBR SPRL O/S IS 85 MILLION .. NOW WE MADE IT ONTO THE " REG SHO " LIST ..
WHY???
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The Regulation also states that any security is deficient if more than 1/2 of 1% (10000 minimum)of its outstanding shares is held in a state of "failure to locate" and "failure to deliver". Essentially, they are naked short shares. Shares that do not exist.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SO IT VERY OBVIOUS THAT SPRL HAS A NAKED SHORT OF ATLEAST
1/2 PERCENT AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING SHARES MINIMUM!!!!
ILL BET YOU THERE MUCH MUCH MORE THAT THAT!!!
HOW WILL WE KNOW THE NAKED SHORT IS COVERED???
THE LIST IS UPDATED EVER DAY...HAHAHHAHA
ANYONE WHO HAS A SELL ORDER IN ON SPRL...REMOVE IT!!!! AND LET THEM PAY MORE!!!!!!!!!!
BALLS IN OUR COURT NOW..
DO NOT GIVE AWAY YOUR SHARES!!!!!!!
this is the most important part of this article
IMPORTANT !!!
1.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If a firm cannot deliver the securities by settlement, a failed trade is entered into the Continuous Net Settlement (CNS), a system administered by the National Securities Clearing Corp., or NSCC.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IMPORTANT !
2.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reg SHO, among other things, aims to have these failed trades settled, mostly by clearly identifying securities with a high threshold of failed deliveries. Under Reg SHO, threshold securities are defined by two criteria: There are at least 10,000 shares in aggregate failed deliveries for the security for five consecutive settlement days and these fails constitute 0.5% or more of outstanding shares. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a security for 13 consecutive settlement days will have to execute mandatory buy-in to clean the fails. If the broker cannot buy-in the security, it and its clients will be restricted from further selling short the security without a "pre-borrow agreement."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
A Dow Jones Newswires Column
NEW YORK -- U.S. stock exchanges will begin publishing so-called threshold lists Friday evening as part of a broad effort by securities regulators to curb failures to deliver stock on settlement date.
Under a new Securities and Exchange Commission regulation known as Reg SHO, all exchanges have to make public daily lists of securities with large amounts of failure to deliver. Reg SHO went into effect on Monday.
These lists will be closely watched by market participants because once a security gets on one, it will become harder and more expensive to sell short the stock and that will likely translate in a higher trading price.
Friday evening's lists will be the first clear indication of the potential impact of Reg SHO on the market, especially when it comes to the stock of thinly traded and more heavily shorted small-cap companies.
Representatives for the New York Stock Exchange, the American Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Exchange, Archipelago and the Chicago Stock Exchange say that the exchanges are ready and will publish their respective lists on their Web sites sometime between market close and midnight.
The web addresses for the lists are as follows:
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
-NYSE: http://www.nyse.. com/threshold
-AMEX: http://amex.. com/amextrader
-ARCA: http://www.tradearca.. com/traders/regsho_th.asp
-Chicago: http://www.chx.. com
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Nasdaq's threshold list is the one that is the most anticipated by traders and investors since it is likely to include the largest number of securities. Nasdaq's list will include securities trading on its national market, small-cap market and on the Over-The-Counter market. The Nasdaq list will also include securities trading on the Pink Sheets that under SEC rules are "reporting companies." Non-reporting Pink Sheets companies are not covered by Reg SHO. But NASD is working on a SHO-like rule that would cover non-reporting companies trading on the Pink Sheets.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
According to a Nasdaq spokeswoman there are about 1,300 reporting Pink Sheets companies. But only 235 of those, for which the exchange has current information on shares outstanding, are currently subject to Reg SHO threshold requirements. There are about 3,500 securities trading on Nasdaq's national and small-cap markets.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
John Bosey, a lawyer for the Boston Stock Exchange, said the exchange will comply with the SEC regulation but he wasn't sure whether the exchange would publish a threshold list by midnight.
A spokesman for the Chicago Exchange wasn't immediately able to say whether the exchange would publish a list or where it would be located. A spokesperson for the National Stock Exchange, formerly the Cincinnati Stock Exchange, said the exchange is not required to publish a threshold list because it has no original listing.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of a decrease in the stock price. Under existing NASD and NYSE rules, firms generally have to locate securities before accepting a short sale, a process known as affirmative determination. Brokerage firms also have to borrow a security or be able to provide it for delivery on demand on settlement date, three days after the transaction.
IMPORTANT !!!
1.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
If a firm cannot deliver the securities by settlement, a failed trade is entered into the Continuous Net Settlement (CNS), a system administered by the National Securities Clearing Corp., or NSCC.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
IMPORTANT !
2.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Reg SHO, among other things, aims to have these failed trades settled, mostly by clearly identifying securities with a high threshold of failed deliveries. Under Reg SHO, threshold securities are defined by two criteria: There are at least 10,000 shares in aggregate failed deliveries for the security for five consecutive settlement days and these fails constitute 0.5% or more of outstanding shares. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a security for 13 consecutive settlement days will have to execute mandatory buy-in to clean the fails. If the broker cannot buy-in the security, it and its clients will be restricted from further selling short the security without a "pre-borrow agreement."
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist and one of four who write the "In The Money" feature. Most recently, she shared a 2003 Best of Business Award from the Society of Business Editors and Writers for her role in Dow Jones' team coverage of the Canary Capital mutual fund trading scandal.)
-By Carol S. Remond; Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-2074; carol.remond@dowjones.com
LETS SQUEEZE THE SHORTS!!!
Ironically, some predict the new rule could even lead to periodic rallies in some of these heavily shorted names, as traders are forced to buy shares to close out their short positions.
Regulation SHO, as the measure is known, is part of an effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission to crack down on abusive short-selling practices. Wall Street brokerages are scrambling to comply with the new rule, which could have big ramifications for hedge funds and other traders that like to short tiny stocks with few shares available for trading.
SHORTS ----- SPRL IS GOONA RUN WILD ALL OVER YOU..
COVER YOUR ILLEAGAL SHORTS ..
Regulation SHO Threshold Security List
As defined in Rule 203(c)(6) of Regulation SHO, a “threshold security” is any equity security of any issuer that is registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act, or that is required to file reports under Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act (commonly referred to as reporting securities), where, for five consecutive settlement days:
* There are aggregate fails to deliver at a registered clearing agency of 10,000 shares or more per security;
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
* The level of fails is equal to at least one-half of one percent of the issuer’s total shares outstanding; and
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
STRATS O/S IS 85 MILLION SHARES....
RUN STRAT RUN... BE A GOOD WEEK FOR NEWS !!!!!!!
SQUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZZZZZEEEEE
* The security is included on a list published by a self-regulatory organization (SRO
http://biz.yahoo.com/ts/050104/10201467_1.html
TheStreet.com
Going Long the Short List
Tuesday January 4, 7:08 am ET
By Matthew Goldstein, Senior Writer
Life has just gotten a bit more difficult for short-sellers.
A new securities regulation, which went into effect Monday, is expected to make it harder and more expensive for traders to bet against many stocks that are favorites of bears.
Ironically, some predict the new rule could even lead to periodic rallies in some of these heavily shorted names, as traders are forced to buy shares to close out their short positions.
Regulation SHO, as the measure is known, is part of an effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission to crack down on abusive short-selling practices. Wall Street brokerages are scrambling to comply with the new rule, which could have big ramifications for hedge funds and other traders that like to short tiny stocks with few shares available for trading.
The rule doesn't alter the basics of short-selling, a time-honored way for traders to make money by borrowing shares from a broker and betting a stock will decline in price. Short-sellers hope to profit by selling borrowed shares and later replacing them with cheaper ones.
But the new rule does clamp down on naked shorting, an unsavory practice in which traders place short bets without actually borrowing shares -- or even determining that any exist to borrow.
The rule prohibits brokers from permitting traders to short a stock unless there are "reasonable grounds" for believing there are shares available to borrow. If those shares cannot be later found, the rule sets down a procedure for brokers to close out the short positions in relatively short order.
Regulators contend that unchecked naked shorting has led to an anomalous situation in which the total number of shares sold short on a stock can exceed its float -- the total number of shares available for trading. In essence, short-sellers are able to "print" shares of stock when none were otherwise available.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The new rule, which some short-sellers have criticized, is supposed to bring the market back into balance. Over the next few weeks, the New York Stock Exchange, the Nasdaq Stock Market and other exchanges will compile so-called "threshold lists" of hard-to-borrow stocks that are more likely to be involved in naked-shorting transactions. The lists, which will be updated daily, are intended to serve as red flags for brokers and traders.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The expectation is that most of the equities on the lists will be small-cap stocks with high short-interest ratios and low floats. Traders looking to place new short bets against these stocks likely will find themselves turned away by their brokers, or forced to pay a premium price when shares are available to borrow.
strat strat strat
guess whos on the list for reg " SHO"
STRAT PETROLUMS!!!!!!!!
COVER THOSE " NAKED " SHORTS YOU BEEN EXPOSED!!
LETS SEE WHAT NEXT WEEK BRINGS?
http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/aspx/regsho.aspx
Symbol/Security Name/Market Category/Reg SHO Threshold Flag/Filler/Filler
AAII/AAIPHARMA INC/Q/Y//
AATK/AMERICAN ACCESS TECHNOLGS INC/S/Y//
ABFI/AMERN BUSINESS FINL SVCS INC/Q/Y//
ABSSF/AIRBOSS OF AMERICA CP NEW(F)/u/Y//
ACTY/ACCESSITY CORP NEW/S/Y//
ADDI/ADDISON-DAVIS DIAGNOSTICS, INC/U/Y//
ADIE/AUTODIE CORP/u/Y//
ADRA/BLDRS ASIA 50 ARR/Q/Y//
ADRD/BLDRS DEVELOPED MKTS 100 ARD/Q/Y//
ADVK/ADVANCED SOLUTIONS & TECHNOLOG/u/Y//
AEGN/AEROGEN INC/S/Y//
AFKDY/AFRIKANDER LEASE LTD ADR/u/Y//
AFTC/AMERN FILM TECHNLGIES INC/u/Y//
AGEN/ANTIGENICS INC. (DEL)/Q/Y//
AGPT/AGRIPOST INC/u/Y//
AGYRP/ALLIANT ENERGY RES INC 7.25% S/u/Y//
AKOL/ALASKA OIL & GAS LTD./u/Y//
AKSY/AKSYS LTD/Q/Y//
ALDA/ALDILA INC/Q/Y//
ALYNQ/ALYN CORPORATION/u/Y//
AMCVQ/AMERICAN CLASSIC VOYAGES CO/u/Y//
AMGJ/AG MEDIA GROUP INC/u/Y//
AMTC/AMERITRANS CAPITAL CORPORATION/S/Y//
AMXI/AMNEX INC/u/Y//
ANDR/ANDREA ELECTRONICS CORP/U/Y//
ANGC/ANGELES CORP/u/Y//
ANLT/ANALYTICAL SURVEYS INC-NEW/S/Y//
ANTP/PHAZAR CORP/S/Y//
AORMF/ANORMED INC/u/Y//
APPX/AMERICAN PHARMACCUTICAL PARTNE/Q/Y//
AQGL/AQUAGEN INTERNATIONAL INC. NEW/u/Y//
ARRU/MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC ARN LKD/Q/Y//
ARWR/ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORP/S/Y//
ARWRW/ARROWHEAD RESEARCH CORPORATION/S/Y//
ASAB/ASIA BROADBAND INC/u/Y//
ASBFY/ASSOCIATED BRITISH FD PLC ADR/u/Y//
ASFZ/ASSOC.FIRST CAP CRP RVO/u/Y//
ATADF/ATAC RESOURCES LTD (CDA)/u/Y//
ATCO/AMERICAN TECH CORP (DEL) NEW/S/Y//
ATNAF/ATNA RESOURCES LTD (F)/u/Y//
AUGB/AMERICAN UNITED GLOBAL INC-NEW/u/Y//
AVCD/ADVANCED CMPTR TECHNIQUES CRP/u/Y//
AVNA/ADVANCE NANTECH INC/U/Y//
AVNNF/ADVANTAGE ENERGY INCOME TR UNI/u/Y//
BDYS/BODYSCAN CORP/u/Y//
BEVI/BEVSYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL INC/u/Y//
BIEL/BIOELECTRONICS CORP/u/Y//
BIGD/BIG DADDY'S BBQ RACING CO./u/Y//
BIKO/BICO INC/U/Y//
BIOW/BIOMEDICAL WASTE SYS INC/u/Y//
BKCI/BUCKEYE COMMUNICATIONS INC/u/Y//
BKHM/BOOKHAM INC/Q/Y//
BLRB/BLUE RIBBON INTERNATIONAL INC/u/Y//
BLTI/BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY INC/Q/Y//
BMAL/BUSINESSMALL.COM INC/u/Y//
BNKFF/BANKERS PETROLEUM LTD/u/Y//
BOOM/DYNAMIC MATERIALS CORP/S/Y//
BOOYY/BOOTS GRP PLC UNSPONS ADR (UK)/u/Y//
BORD/BOARDWALK BANK (NJ)/S/Y//
BPUR/BIOPURE CORPORATION CL-A/Q/Y//
BSBLQ/SCORE BOARD INC/u/Y//
BSTE/BIOSITE INC/Q/Y//
BVHJ/BEVERLY HILLS FILM STUDIOS NEW/u/Y//
BVSN/BROADVISION INC COM NEW/Q/Y//
CAAS/CHINA AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS INC/S/Y//
CABG/CABG MEDICAL, INC./Q/Y//
CAFE/HOST AMERICA CORP/S/Y//
CALM/CAL-MAINE FOODS INC/Q/Y//
CBBS/COLUMBIA BAKERIES INC NEW/u/Y//
CBTE/COMMONWEALTH BIOTECHNOLOGS INC/S/Y//
CCGC/CCC GLOBALCOM CORP./u/Y//
CFWEQ/CONS FREIGHTWAYS CORP/u/Y//
CHCL/CHINA CONTINENTAL INC/u/Y//
CHDT/CHINA DIRECT TRADING CORPORATI/U/Y//
CHES/CHESTER HLDGS LTD/u/Y//
CIFMF/CI FUND MANAGEMENT INC/u/Y//
CMKK/CHILMARK ENTERTAINMENT GROUP I/u/Y//
CMLGF/CROWFLIGHT MINERALS INC/u/Y//
CMNZF/CENTURY MINING CO (CA)/u/Y//
CMPGY/COMPASS GROUP PLC (UK)/u/Y//
CMTN/COPPER MTN NETWORKS INC/Q/Y//
CNDD/CONCORDE AMERICA INC/u/Y//
CONI/CONTINENTAL INVESTMENT CP-NEW/u/Y//
COSWF/CANADIAN OIL SANDS TRUST/u/Y//
CPKYF/CARPATSKY PETROLEUM INC/u/Y//
CPRD/CORPORATE ROADSHOW COM INC/U/Y//
CRCS/CORECARE SYSTEMS INC/u/Y//
CRDM/CARDIMA INC/S/Y//
CSCC/CENTERSPAN COMMUNICATIONS CP/u/Y//
CSDN/CROSSSTREET DISTRIBUTION INC/u/Y//
CSJB/MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC JETBLUE/Q/Y//
CSJJ/COASTAL HOLDINGS INC NEW/u/Y//
CSSA/MERRILL LYNCH & CO INC 8%CALLA/Q/Y//
CSTJ/CRESTON RESOURCES LTD/u/Y//
CTCHC/COMMTOUCH SOFTWARE LTD/S/Y//
CUAQ/CHINA UNISTONE AQUISITION CORP/U/Y//
CUAQU/CHINA UNISTONE ACQUSITION CORP/U/Y//
CVQC/CIVIC EQUITES CORP/u/Y//
CVVLF/CANALASKA VENTURES LTD/U/Y//
CWYR/COLORADO WYOMING RESERVE CO/u/Y//
CYBR/CYBERCARE INC/u/Y//
CYBUF/CYBERSURF CORP (F)/u/Y//
CYTR/CYTRX CORP/S/Y//
DAEEF/DASHER EXPLORATION LTD/u/Y//
DASTY/DASSAULT SYSTEMES SA ADR/Q/Y//
DCTH/DELCATH SYSTEMS INC/S/Y//
DCUT/DICUT INC/u/Y//
DGRLF/DIGITAL ROOSTER.COM LTD/U/Y//
DIGSQ/SOFTLOCK.COM INC/u/Y//
DMTHF/DIMETHAID RESEARCH INC (F)/u/Y//
DMTI/DATAMETRICS CORP/u/Y//
DNTK/DAUPHIN TECHNOLOGY INC/u/Y//
DRRAP/DURA AUTOMOTIVE SYS CAP TR PFD/Q/Y//
DSMKY/DSM NV SPON ADR/u/Y//
DSTI/DAYSTAR TECHNOLOGIES INC/S/Y//
DTLXF/DATALEX CORP/u/Y//
DVNLF/DUVERNAY OIL CORP/u/Y//
DVNNF/DEVINE ENTERTAINMENT CORP(F)/u/Y//
DYTK/DYNTEK INC/U/Y//
ECSPQ/ENRON CAPITAL RES LP 9% PFD A/u/Y//
ECST/ECOST.COM INC/Q/Y//
EDGR/EDGAR ONLINE.INC/Q/Y//
EEEI/ELECTRO ENERGY INC/S/Y//
EESI/EMERGING ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS/u/Y//
EIDSY/EIDOS PLC ADR/Q/Y//
ELOS/SYNERON MEDICAL LTD ORD SHARES/Q/Y//
EMTI/ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES INT/u/Y//
ENGY/ENVIRO- ENERGY CORP/u/Y//
EPMD/EP MEDSYSTEMS INC/S/Y//
EQTX/EQUITEX INC/S/Y//
ERHC/ENVIRONMNL REMEDIATION FUNDING/U/Y//
ESOLQ/EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS INC/u/Y//
ETAD/ENTRADE INC(HOLDING CO)/u/Y//
ETLC/ETELCHARGE.COM INC/u/Y//
EVAM/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSETS MGMT INC/u/Y//
EVLO/EVOLVE ONE INC NEW/U/Y//
EVRC/EVERCEL INC/u/Y//
FANT/FINANTRA CAPITAL INC/u/Y//
FCACF/FORMATION CAPITAL CORP (F)/u/Y//
FDEG/FRIENDLY ENERGY CORPORATION/u/Y//
FDEI/FIDELIS ENERGY INC/U/Y//
FLMP/FLAME SEAL PRODUCTS/u/Y//
FPFX/FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL GR INC/u/Y//
FPXA/FORTUNE NATURAL RESOURCES CORP/u/Y//
FRDM/FRIEDMANS INC CL-A/u/Y//
FRLLF/FARALLON RESOURCES LTD/u/Y//
FSIJ/FOOD SAFE INTL INC NEW/u/Y//
FSRT/FREESTAR TECHNOLOGY CORP NEW/U/Y//
FSTF/FIRST STATE FINANCIAL CORP (FL/Q/Y//
GADZQ/GADZOOKS INC/u/Y//
GALB/GALTON BIOMETRICS INC NEW./u/Y//
GBAMF/GLOBAL ALUMINA PRODS CORP/u/Y//
GBRIF/GOLDEN BAND RESOURCES INC (F)/u/Y//
GCEGF/GEOCAN ENERGY INC/u/Y//
GDSJF/GOLD SUMMIT CORPORATION/u/Y//
GENI/GENESISINTERMEDIA INC/u/Y//
GENM/GRAND ENTERTMT & MUSIC INC/u/Y//
GIVN/GIVEN IMAGING LTD/Q/Y//
GKNLY/GKN PLC SPONS ADR/u/Y//
GLBC/GLOBAL CROSSING LTD NEW (BERMU/Q/Y//
GLBE/GLOBAL ESCIENCE CORP/u/Y//
GLBT/GLOBALNET CORPORATION/U/Y//
GLNC/GLOBAL NATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS/U/Y//
GMDP/GLOBAL MEDICAL PRODUCTS HLGS I/u/Y//
GMGX/GALACTIC GAMING INC/u/Y//
GNBT/GENEREX BIOTECHNOLOGY CORP/S/Y//
GOAM/GO AMERICA INC NEW/S/Y//
GORX/GEOPHARMA INC/S/Y//
GSREF/GASTAR EXPLORATION LTD/u/Y//
GTEL/GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP/U/Y//
GTKN/GAME TECHNOLOGIES INC/u/Y//
GTTLQ/GT GROUP TELECOM INC CL B/u/Y//
GUCG/GUCCI GRP NV(COM2.23 DTCH GLDS/u/Y//
GWLG/GROWTHLOGIC INC/u/Y//
GZFX/GAMEZNFLIX INC/U/Y//
HCCF/HEE CORPORATION COMM STK/u/Y//
HCCFP/HEE CORPORATION PFD/u/Y//
HCNP/HAMPTON CONSULTING CORP/u/Y//
HMYRQ/HEILIG MEYERS COMPANY/u/Y//
HOFF/HORIZON OFFSHORE INC/Q/Y//
HPON/HOP-ON.COM/u/Y//
HPRIF/HIGH POINT RESOURCES INC/u/Y//
HTBI/HOT BRANDS INC/u/Y//
IBYXF/INTL BARRYTEX RES LTD (F)/u/Y//
ICTN/INNOVATIVE COMMUNI TECHS INC/u/Y//
IEME/IEMI/u/Y//
IFTA/INFOTOPIA INC - NEW/u/Y//
INCX/INTERCHANGE CORPORATION/S/Y//
INFY/INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD ADS/Q/Y//
INGN/INTROGEN THERAPEUTICS INC/Q/Y//
INLRF/ICON LASER EYE CENTERS INC/u/Y//
INMD/INTEGRAMED AMERICA INC/Q/Y//
INSM/INSMED INC-NEW/Q/Y//
INTZ/INTRUSION INC NEW/S/Y//
INWD/INWOOD DEV CORP/u/Y//
IQBX/I Q BIOMETRIX INC NEW/U/Y//
ISON/ISONICS CORP/S/Y//
ISONL/ISONICS CORP WTS B 12/31/2005/S/Y//
ISONZ/ISONICS CORP WTS C 12/31/2005/S/Y//
ISRI/INTL STAR INC/u/Y//
ISTM/I-STORM INC./u/Y//
ITVGF/ITV GAMES INC/u/Y//
IVWFF/IVERNIA INC/u/Y//
IWSI/INTEGRATED WASTE SVCS INC./u/Y//
JCOUF/JEAN COUTU GRP CL-A S/VTG/u/Y//
JMYCW/JAMESWAY CORP WTS 1/27/10/u/Y//
JNRRF/JNR RESOURCES INC (F)/u/Y//
KENS/KENILWORTH SYSTEMS CORP/u/Y//
KNBWY/KIRIN BREWERY LTD SPONSORED AD/S/Y//
KOOP/DRKOOP.COM INC/u/Y//
KQIPQ/KPNQWEST NV CL-C NY REG SHS/u/Y//
KSUAO/KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN 4.25% PER/u/Y//
LBRT/LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES/u/Y//
LGREF/LOGAN RESOURCES LTD (CANADA)/u/Y//
LIHRY/LIHIR GOLD LTD SPONS ADR/Q/Y//
LNMIY/LONMIN PLC SPONS ADR-NEW/u/Y//
LNVGY/LENOVO GROUP LTD SPONS ADR/u/Y//
LRLSQ/LORAL SPACE & COMMUNICATIONS L/U/Y//
LTWC/LTWC CORPORATION/u/Y//
MAGS/MAGAL SECURITY SYSTEMS LTD-ORD/Q/Y//
MBND/MULTIBAND CORP/S/Y//
MBTA/TRANSMEDIA ASIA PACIFIC INC/u/Y//
MCHX/MARCHEX INC/Q/Y//
MCLDW/MCLEODUSA INC WTS NEW/U/Y//
MCSIQ/MCSI INC./u/Y//
MCYPF/MUSICRYPT INC (CANADA)/u/Y//
MDDM/MDM GROUP INC/u/Y//
MDLK/MEDIALINK WORLDWIDE INC/Q/Y//
MDMN/MEDINAH MINERALS INC/u/Y//
MEGL/MESA GOLD INC/u/Y//
MEIX/MUTUAL EXCHANGE INT'L INC/u/Y//
MEMI/MIRACLE ENTERTAINMENT INC/u/Y//
MHNZF/MATCHNET SPN REG S GDR/u/Y//
MLKKF/MERCATOR MINERALS LTD/u/Y//
MMFS/MEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC./u/Y//
MMUS/MAKEMUSIC/ INC NEW/S/Y//
MNCP/MOTIENT CORP/u/Y//
MPTT/MPTV INC-NEW/u/Y//
MRLE/MERL HOLDINGS INC.COM/u/Y//
MTXLF/MATERIALS PROTECTION TECHNGY(F/u/Y//
MUGRF/MURGOR RESOURCES INC (F)/u/Y//
MWAV/M-WAVE INC/S/Y//
MXAL/METAL RECOVERY TECHNLGS INC/u/Y//
MXAM/MAXAM GOLD CORPORATION/u/Y//
NAVR/NAVARRE CORP/Q/Y//
NCLRF/NORTHERN CONTL RES INC (F)/u/Y//
NDVLY/NEW WORLD DEV CO SPONS ADR/u/Y//
NEKDA/NEUROTECH DEVELOPMENT CORPORAT/u/Y//
NELMQ/NATURES ELEMENT HOLDING CRP/u/Y//
NFLD/NORTHFIELD LABORATORIES INC/Q/Y//
NFLX/NETFLIX COM INC/Q/Y//
NFXGF/NFX GOLD INC (CANADA)/u/Y//
NGEN/NANOGEN INC/Q/Y//
NGPC/NGP CAPITAL RESOURCES COMPANY/Q/Y//
NGTHQ/NEXT GENERATION TECH HLDGS INC/u/Y//
NHCMF/NHC COMMUNICATIONS INC (F)/u/Y//
NLBC/NELSON L B CORP/u/Y//
NLRRF/NELSON RESOURCES LTD/u/Y//
NMCX/NMC INC/u/Y//
NPNI/NEPTUNE INDUSTRIES INC/u/Y//
NRDS/NORD RESOURCES CORPORATION/u/Y//
NSDM/NORTH STAR DIAMONDS INC/u/Y//
NUSI/NUTRI SOURCE INDUSTRIES INC/u/Y//
NVAX/NOVAVAX INC/Q/Y//
NVEC/NVE CORPORATION NEW/S/Y//
NVONF/NUVO NETWORK MGMT INC/u/Y//
NVPGF/NEVADA PAC GOLD LTD/u/Y//
NWPWQ/NEWPOWER HOLDINGS INC/u/Y//
OBTV/ORBITTRAVEL.COM CORPORATION/u/Y//
OGAM/ONLINE GAMING SYSTEMS LTD/u/Y//
OGLEQ/OGLEBAY NORTON CO/u/Y//
OLAB/ORALABS HOLDING CORP/S/Y//
OMNI/OMNI ENERGY SVCS CORP/Q/Y//
OSHC/OCEAN SHORE HOLDING CO/Q/Y//
PACT/PACIFICNET INC NEW/S/Y//
PDNW/PROXITY DIGITAL NETWORKS INC/u/Y//
PDSE/PARADISE MUSIC & ENTMT INC/u/Y//
PFMS/PAPERFREE MEDICAL SOLUTIONS IN/U/Y//
PGEXQ/PACIFIC GATEWAY EXHANGE INC/u/Y//
PHYOY/PHYTOPHARM PLC SPONS ADR (UNIT/u/Y//
PLFM/PLATFORMS WIRELESS INTL CORP/u/Y//
PLNI/PLASTICON INTL INC/u/Y//
PNVNQ/PNV INC/u/Y//
POSO/PROSOFTTRAINING/S/Y//
PPHD/PREMIER PLATFORMS HLDG INC NEW/u/Y//
PPYR/PRIMEPLAYER INC/u/Y//
PRAV/PARADIGM ADVANCED TECHNLGS INC/u/Y//
PTSEF/POINTS INTL LTD (CANADA)/u/Y//
PTSG/PETROSEARCH ENERGY CORP/u/Y//
QDXC/QUADRAX CORPORATION/u/Y//
QTRO/Q TRONICS INC/u/Y//
QURAF/QUATERRA RESOURCES INC LTD/u/Y//
RCOQF/QUALITY DINO ENTERTAINMNT LTD/u/Y//
REDF/REDIFF.COM INDIA LTD ADS/S/Y//
RLTR/REELTIME RENTALS INC/u/Y//
RNGZY/ROSNEFTEGAZSTROY JSC SPN ADR/u/Y//
SCMI/SUNNCOMM INTERNATIONAL INC/u/Y//
SCTN/SCHIMATIC TECH INC/u/Y//
SCUI/SECURECARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC./U/Y//
SCXC/SCIAX CORPORATION/u/Y//
SDVR/SDI VIRTUAL REALITY CORP/u/Y//
SGCNF/SUNRIDGE GOLD CORP(F)/u/Y//
SGDTF/STERLITE GOLD LTD/u/Y//
SINPY/SINGAPORE LAND LTD ADR/u/Y//
SKRZF/SKYE RESOURCES INC/u/Y//
SLOAF/STELCO INC CV CL-A COM (F)/u/Y//
SLTXF/SLATER STEEL INC (F)/u/Y//
SMEFF/STORM CAT ENERGY CORPORATION/u/Y//
SMLA/STEALTH MEDIALABS INC/u/Y//
SMSE/SMS @CTIVE TECHNOLOGIES CORP/u/Y//
SMTKQ/SMARTALK TELESERVICES INC/u/Y//
SMTX/SMTC CORPORATION NEW/Q/Y//
SNPC/SUNPOINT SECURITIES INC/u/Y//
SOLD/HOUSE VALUES, INC/Q/Y//
SONT/SONTRA MED CORP/S/Y//
SPCBF/SUPERCOM LTD (ISRAEL)/U/Y//
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SPRL/STRAT PETROLEUM LTD NEW/u/Y//
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SPRS/SURGE COMPONENTS INC/u/Y//
SQNC/SEQUOIA INTERESTS CORPORATION/u/Y//
STGIF/ST GENEVIEVE RESOURCES LTD/u/Y//
STIY/STINGER SYS INC/u/Y//
SYHO/SYNERGIE WELLNESS PRODUCTS INC/u/Y//
TASR/TASER INTERNATIONAL INC/Q/Y//
TAYD/TAYLOR DEVICES INC/S/Y//
TBAH/TUBAC HOLDINGS INC/u/Y//
TEIL/3E INTERNATIONAL CORP/u/Y//
TINN/TRIAD INNOVATIONS INC/u/Y//
TKHL/TKO HLDGS LTD/u/Y//
TLXFQ/TOOLEX INTL N.V. ORD/u/Y//
TMARQ/TRICO MARINE SERVICES INC/u/Y//
TMBN/TIMBER RESOURCES INTL INC NEW/u/Y//
TMMG/TRIM IMAGE INC/u/Y//
TNGO/TANGO INC/u/Y//
TPBV/TROPICAL BEVERAGE INC/u/Y//
TPLQ/TPC LIQ INC/u/Y//
TRICY/TRICOM SA ADS(RP 1 CL A COMM)/u/Y//
TSAR/TRISTAR CORP/u/Y//
TSENF/TELESCENE FILM GROUP INC/u/Y//
TTNP/TUTORNET.COM GROUP INC/u/Y//
TTWP/12 TO 20 PLUS. INC. NEW/U/Y//
TVGTF/TVG TECHNOLOGIES LTD-ORD-/u/Y//
TYRRF/TYLER RESOURCES INC (F)/u/Y//
TZOO/TRAVELZOO INC/Q/Y//
UEYCF/U.T.S. ENERGY CORP/u/Y//
ULTEE/ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS INC/Q/Y//
UNMPL/UNUMPROVIDENT CORP ADJ CONV RA/u/Y//
UPGD/UPGRADE INTL CORP/u/Y//
USCA/U.S. CANADIAN MINERALS, INC. N/u/Y//
USWF/US WIND FARMING INC/u/Y//
UTDL/UNITED LEISURE CORP/u/Y//
VCIX/VIRTUAL COMMUNITIES INC/u/Y//
VCMP/VCAMPUS CORP/S/Y//
VCSY/VERTICAL COMPUTER SYS INC-NEW-/u/Y//
VERGF/VERB EXCHANGE INC/u/Y//
VERT/VERTICALNET INC/S/Y//
VGENQ/HARVARD SCIENTIFIC CORP/u/Y//
VIRFF/VIREXX MEDICAL CORP/u/Y//
VLTS/VALENTIS INC/S/Y//
VNCO/VENCOR INTL INC/u/Y//
VPER/VIPER NETWORKS INC./u/Y//
WATFZ/WATERFORD WEDGEWOOD PLC ADR UT/Q/Y//
WFDNF/WOLFDEN RES INC (CDA)/u/Y//
WGFL/WORLD GOLF LEAGUE INC (THE) NE/U/Y//
WHRT/WORLD HEART CORPORATION (CANAD/Q/Y//
WJTAF/WESTJET AIRLINES LTD/u/Y//
WLSF/WELLSTONE FILTERS INC/U/Y//
WSTM/WORKSTREAM INC/S/Y//
WTFCP/WINTRUST CAPITAL TR I PFD/Q/Y//
WWEN/W2 ENERGY INC. (NV)/u/Y//
XEDA/AXEDA SYSTEMS INC/S/Y//
XING/QIAO XING UNIV TELEPHONE INC/Q/Y//
XLACF/XCELERA INC/u/Y//
XNVA/XENOVA GROUP PLC ADS-NEW/Q/Y//
XTMG/XTREME TECHNOLOGIES INC/u/Y//
XYNY/XYNERGY CORPORATION/u/Y//
YUKOY/YUKOS CORP SPONS ADR/u/Y//
ZANN/ZANN CORPORATION/U/Y//
ZEDKF/ZED.I SOLUTIONS INC/u/Y//
ZOLT/ZOLTEK COMPANIES INC/Q/Y//
20050108095148
SPRL
sprl will be the talk of the town in 2005 i really belive that.. dollars are coming...imho
locked and loaded very happy with my sprl holdings...
i was alerted to this stock today also it might warrent some dd on everyones part ..looks like a another big winner..
" AOGC " AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS acquisition of Nations Natural Gas Pty is being made to cost-effectively acquire a 30% interest in the permits of the National Gas Consortium, being permits NT/P62, NT/P63, NT/P64, and NT/P65 "Permits" and cover a total area of approximately 14,875 square kilometers. (3,675,692.549) ACRES
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-Permit NT/P65, which is adjacent to the major Sunrise-Troubador gas and condensate discoveries in the Bonaparte Basin, Timor Sea, was awarded to a consortium comprising National Oil and Gas Pty. Ltd., Australian Natural Gas Pty. Ltd. and Nations Natural Gas Pty. Ltd.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
how big is that field that " AOGC " AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS block NT/P65 is "adjacent" to ?
Sunrise-Troubador gas field
321 million barrels of oil and 8.65 tcf of gas
with estimates of 8 to 20 tcf
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/ba2000/techprogram/paper_4375.htm
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Area NT02-1 was previously awarded as exploration permit NT/P56 for a six year term (commencing in January 1999) to Roma Petroleum Company Pty Ltd and Guinness Peat plc. In early 2001, at the conclusion of Year 2 of the primary exploration program, exploration permit NT/P56 was cancelled due to non-fulfilment of commitments in the minimum guaranteed work program by the permittees.
The area is covered by regional, 2D seismic surveys acquired in 1965 and 1966. In 1974, more detailed seismic coverage led to the drilling of the first exploration well in the vicinity of NT02-1 (Troubadour-1). To date, no wells have been drilled within release area NT02-1.
HERE A FEW MAPS OF THE BLOCK IT BUTTS RIGHT UP TO THE MASSIVE 9 TCF GAS FIELD
http://www1.industry.gov.au/archive/petr_exploration/2002/Figures/JPEG/Sahul_Platform/Release_Areas/...
http://www1.industry.gov.au/archive/petr_exploration/2002/goldbook/NT02-1/Release.html
http://www.doir.wa.gov.au/documents/mineralsandpetroleum/timor03.pdf
looks like a real high potential prospect being so close to a 8 to 20 tcf gas discovery
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
NOW HERE A REVIEW OF ANOTHER PROPERTY " BLOCKS"S" AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS HAVE A PERCENTAGE IN
" AOGC " AUSTRALIAN OIL AND GAS acquisition of Alpha Oil & Gas Pty Ltd is being made to cost-effectively acquire a 20% interest in the permits of the Browse Joint Venture, being permits WA-332-P, WA-333-P, WA-341-P and WA-342-P ("Permits").
The Permits of the Browse Joint Venture are contiguous and are located in the offshore Browse Basin, a part of the North West Shelf of Australia. They cover a total area of 11,080 sqkms (2,726,760 acres).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
THESE 4 BLOCK
There are 7 prospective plays in the area
covered by WA-332-P, WA-333-P, WA-
341-P and WA-342-P:
http://www.riu.com.au/wapo/pdf/WAPO10.pdf
http://www.explorationist.com/APPEA_Cornea.htm
AND
Our wholly owned subsidiary, Gascorp, Inc (Gascorp), with other affiliated joint venturers, was granted by the Australian Government, a petroleum exploration permit, AC/P33, for an initial 6-year term. Gascorp holds a 20% interest in the permit, in joint venture with its affiliates; Natural Gas Corporation Pty Ltd (40%) and Auralandia N.L. (40%), the designated Operator.
Permit AC/P33, which includes the Oliver oil discovery in the Bonaparte Basin, has been awarded to Natural Gas Corporation Pty Ltd, Auralandia NL and Gascorp Inc
http://rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=15195
1997 Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association Annual Conference.
ABSTRACT
The retention of oil charge is a major issue impacting exploration in the Timor Sea; recent work has recognised the loss of significant volumes of oil from once oil-filled structures. A study of gas fields in the Timor Sea has shown that these traps often contain palaeo-oil columns, with a high abundance of oil bearing fluid inclusions (GOI) recorded in sands which are presently gas saturated. These palaeo-oil columns are substantial, suggesting the volume of liquid hydrocarbons that has been redistributed is significant. For example, at Oliver-1, a 100 m relict oil column, equating to original oil in place of over 166 MMBBL, has been identified. However, estimates of current oil in place account for less than 45 MMBBL, suggesting that more than 120 MMBBL of oil has been displaced across the spill point of the Oliver structure. This remobilised oil in effect constitutes an oil charge for nearby structures of known volume, with seismic mapping confidently allowing the mapping of remigration fairways into up-dip traps. Significantly, the likelihood of this untested trap containing liquids is supported by the presence of an oil leg at Oliver-1, which shows that only oil has been displaced from the Oliver trap.
http://www-old.dpr.csiro.au/research/fha/pub.html
needsless to say that info is from 97.. new siemic and reworked data sure helps out as we seen with many other companies..
The Oliver-1 (1987) well located an oil and gas accumulation reported as 15-18 mmbbls and 335-345 bcf.
THERE REWORKING NEW SEISMIC DATA THATS 3D ! NOT THE OLD 2 D FROM THE EARLY 60'S LOL
agian with 27 million o/s and trading 6 cents a share ?
do your dd
aogc do your dd
o/s 27 million..
insider own 19 million...
tradin 6 cents a share...
sprl has been good so far i bought in low there ..
here imho is another major oppurtunity in AOGC
ALOT OF ACERAGE WELL OVER 6 MILLION ACRES..
put it on your radar screens
AOGC AND SPRL
MY 2 BEST PICKS OF 2005
oil and gas offshore austrilla
The acquisition of Alpha is being made to cost-effectively acquire a 20% interest in the permits of the Browse Joint Venture, being permits WA-332-P, WA-333-P, WA-341-P and WA-342-P ("Permits"). The shareholders of Alpha shall, upon conclusion of formal documentation and satisfaction of all conditions, be entitled to receive 2,000,002 shares of common stock of AOGC as consideration for Alpha.
The Permits of the Browse Joint Venture are contiguous and are located in the offshore Browse Basin, a part of the North West Shelf of Australia. They cover a total area of 11,080 sqkms (2,726,760 acres).
and
The acquisition of Nations is being made to cost-effectively acquire a 30% interest in the permits of the National Gas Consortium, being permits NT/P62, NT/P63, NT/P64, and NT/P65 ("Permits"). The shareholders of Nations shall, upon conclusion of formal documentation and satisfaction of all conditions, be entitled to receive 2,100,001 shares of common stock of AOGC as consideration for Nations.
The Permits of the National Gas Consortium are located in the Australian eastern Timor Sea region of the Bonaparte Basin, offshore Northern Territory,
and cover a total area of approximately 14,875 square kilometers.
The Timor Sea covers a huge area over a million square kilometers, underlain by sedimentary basins with potential for new hydrocarbon discoveries. The region has a long history of oil discovery dating back to the Jabiru-1 discovery in 1983, which alerted the (Australian) domestic and international petroleum industries to the significant oil potential of the region. Since that time there have been numerous oil and wet gas discoveries in the northern Bonaparte Basin, which hosts the Laminaria, Corallina and Bayu-Undan fields, and the giant gas fields of Greater Sunrise and Evans Shoal.
Our wholly owned subsidiary, Gascorp, Inc (Gascorp), with other affiliated joint venturers, was granted by the Australian Government, a petroleum exploration permit, AC/P33, for an initial 6-year term. Gascorp holds a 20% interest in the permit, in joint venture with its affiliates; Natural Gas Corporation Pty Ltd (40%) and Auralandia N.L. (40%), the designated Operator.