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.
no reason to pump tom, this is a bricks and mortar company
king great observation
well..sbsh bid is .004 and are now asking .005
what was nites profit trading 1.2 BILLION shares?
doms on the bid at .0035 asking 14 cents..hillarious
ema you reffering to 1 mm UBSS 1 bid size 100 ask, now thats making a market
nites doing a gobble..gobble..gobble right now at .002
akin..you're kidding right???
ot:Regulator cracks down on naked short sales
Former fund manager to pay $110,000 U.S.
January 09, 2007
Tara Perkins
business reporter
The former portfolio manager of a $200 million (U.S.) New York-based hedge fund has agreed to pay $110,000 to settle charges that he took part in an illegal trading scheme, in one of a trio of recent fraud cases that involve "naked" short-selling in Canada.
In the last year, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – after receiving help from the Investment Dealers Association of Canada – has filed fraud charges in three separate cases against American hedge funds, based on similar allegations.
It alleges the funds made millions by making bets, in Canada, that certain companies' share prices would fall, and covering the bets using discounted shares they knew they were going to obtain in financing deals.
Each case also involves an unidentified Canadian broker-dealer that is not accused of any wrongdoing.
"The commission's investigation continues as to the role of other entities or individuals into the misconduct alleged in the complaint," Robert Kaplan, of the SEC's enforcement division, said yesterday.
In each case, the hedge fund agreed to invest in a PIPE – private investment in public equity – offering. That's where investors agree to buy restricted shares from primarily U.S.-based companies at a certain, discounted, price and the company, in turn, agrees to file for registration so that the investor can resell the shares to the public. Because the company is left with more shares outstanding, its stock often falls once the discounted shares are resold.
The SEC alleges that in each case, after agreeing to invest in the PIPE financing, the hedge funds sold short the companies' shares through "naked" short sales in Canada. Short-selling, which is legal, is when investors sell borrowed shares in a bet that the price will fall.
At some point, the investors cover the short sale by buying the shares and handing them over. If they can buy the shares at a lower price, they profit. In naked short-selling, the investors have not arranged to borrow the shares, and so are promising to deliver shares they can't guarantee they will obtain. The shares are not covered, or are "naked," at the time of the sale.
Regulators have recently moved to stop naked short-selling. At the time of the allegations against the funds, it was legal in Canada, the SEC said.
Essentially, the hedge funds are accused of being involved on both sides of the naked short sales, which allowed them to make bigger, guaranteed profits. The hedge funds were covering the short sales with the discounted shares from the PIPE offerings, the SEC alleged.
Last week, Joseph Spiegel, a former portfolio manager for New York-based hedge fund Spinner Global Technology Fund Ltd., agreed to pay a penalty of $110,000.
He did not admit or deny the allegations, which accused him of agreeing in 2002 to invest in three PIPE transactions for companies that were listed on the Nasdaq or NYSE, and then selling short the companies' shares through naked short sales in Canada.
"To close out the Canadian short positions, Spiegel engaged in deceptive, pre-arranged trades with his Canadian broker-dealer," the SEC alleged.
"There's a whole lot of speculation as to why they did some of their trading through Canada," said Alex Popovic, the IDA's vice-president of enforcement. He said there is more than one Canadian broker involved.
looks like someone on the inside leaked the affidavit to people posting on this board, wonder who on this board has contact with those on the inside at the osc?
airys..did he ever disclose his source of non-public info? what did mr anderson say about this?
airys, if it wasn't made public, were laws broken?
just got off the phone with airys, he will be responding to the board any minute, hes out picking up his kids from school
update on company website..http://www.telynx.net/Telynx,%20Inc1.pdf
NITE has the new hangover still inactive on l2, considering they traded 1.2 BILLION shares in 2006
AMEN...AMEN....AMEN brother
kkgd how much did you lose investing in sljb? if you lost money and feel you were harmed by this company why arent you hiring a lawyer and going after them?
ok and i was wrong and your point is?
i support anyone and anything until proven guilty by a court of law not a bunch of low lifes who lost money and are acting like a bunch of school yard kids!! you have a problem with the company go hire a lawyer and sue them!! let the hearings and the evidence presented there speak for themselves!!
if they are found guilty for wrong doing than i'll accept it and move on, bottomline there are people here that have other agendas!!
let the hearings decide not you!!!
kk..are you saying the chamber of commerce certificate is a falsified document?
kkgd...i have no problem admitting i was wrong, it was just brought to my attention that it was a chamber of commerce certificate..my bad!! was i posting a lie, no...i simply misinterpreted the certificate as a license...thanks
jim...let the hearing and the evidence speak for itself not people throwing around false accusations one waqy or another, hopefully soon this will al be exposed for what it really is!!
you have no evidence that wessal did not exist, marquis had no problem telling investors they really existed, in time the evidence will be layed out at the hearing
gentric what confirmation do you have of this? airys posted the wessal business license on his website how do you say they did not exist?
hedge fund naked shorted stock thru canada
trph named...EX-hedge fund manager settles PIPE case
Published: January 4, 2007 - 3:13 pm
PRINT THIS STORY
EMAIL TO A FRIEND
RSS FEEDS
REPRINTS
MOST POPULAR
SEND A TIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) — A former New York hedge fund manager will pay $110,000 to settle charges of fraudulent trading in three PIPE deals, which are private investments in public equity.
Joseph Spiegel, a former manager for Spinner Asset Management, settled with the Securities and Exchange Commission without admitting or denying the SEC's allegations. In addition to paying a fine, Mr. Spiegel agreed to a three-year ban on working in the investment advisory business.
Spinner advised the Spinner Global Technology Fund, a $200 million Manhattan-based hedge fund, which reached its own settlement with the SEC last year regarding the PIPE deals with Tripath Technology Inc., Hypercom Corp. and Novatel Wireless Inc.
According to the SEC, after the hedge fund agreed to invest in three PIPE deals, Mr. Spiegel sold those stocks short using ''naked'' short sales in Canada, and covered the short positions with shares obtained through the PIPE offering.
Short selling involves sales of borrowed securities, producing profits when prices decline and borrowed shares are replaced at a lower price. So-called ''naked'' short sellers do not borrow shares before selling them.
The SEC said Mr. Spiegel should have known that it was illegal to cover Spinner's short position with shares it obtained from the PIPE offering. While short selling is legal, the hedge fund had promised the PIPE issuers that it would not sell or transfer shares it received.
''This is part of our crackdown on abuses in the PIPEs market,'' said Robert Kaplan, an assistant director in the SEC's Washington office.
Mr. Spiegel's attorney, Niki Warin, declined to comment on the matter.
MUST READ....STOCKGATE TODAY
An online newspaper reporting the issues of Securities Fraud
Wall Street's Lobbies for more Profit Protection - January 4, 2007
David Patch
In today's Traders Magazine columnist Peter Chapman discussed the most recent Wall Street debate over Regulation SHO and the now infamous grandfather clause imbedded in the law. In reading between the lines of the article, Wall Street appears to be looking for more party favors from the SEC to keep the 2006 jamboree rolling into 2007.
Recall, in 2004 the SEC released the final version of Regulation SHO to the public and with this release they presented, for the first time, this otherwise unheard of hall pass called the "grandfather clause". After succumbing to the lobbying of the Securities Industry Association (SIA) the SEC incorporated this controversial clause into law without the benefit of public comment or even public awareness. The clause, intended to protect the industry members from their responsibility (liability) in settling what were considered to be excessive and sometimes illegal short positions, was quietly added to the fine print of the released at the 12th hour against the wishes and recommendations of Congressional oversight.
Today, after reconsidering such rule making, the SEC has proposed eliminating this controversial clause identifying it as a loophole that needs to be closed. One SEC Commissioner has called the revision under consideration a mere fine-tuning of the newly created law.
"In fine-tuning Reg SHO," SEC Commissioner Roel Campos remarked in a speech this summer, "our efforts are targeted at protecting a small universe of thinly-capitalized securities from abusive trading wherein the level of fails to deliver can harm the market for the security."
Consider that the difference between today and June 2004 is merely 18-months of opportunity for Wall Street to slowly cover potentially abusive trade liabilities profitably.
As for that "small universe of thinly-capitalized securities" referenced by Campos, to date more than 25% of all NYSE and 30% of all NASDAQ listed securities have held a position on the SEC's threshold security list for excessive failures with neither market rarely considered as being loaded with thinly capitalized companies. In total over, 4000 of the near 13,000 publicly traded companies have seen time on the list.
No small universe by my standards.
The 18-month delay by the regulators in enforcing the laws still may not satisfy Wall Street as the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), formerly SIA, apparently continues to lobby the SEC on behalf of the members of Wall Street.
SIFMA contends that the elimination of the grandfather clause would lead to a rash of short squeezes as presented in an industry sponsored comment memo to the SEC by the lobbyist organization. Preventing short squeezes was why the SEC created the grandfather exemption in the first place, SIFMA contends.
A short squeeze occurs when shorts are forced to buy in their positions. In this case, Industry concern is over being responsible to cover shorts sold to investors but never delivered beyond a 13-day trading period.
But short squeezes are not illegal and certainly not illegal if they are the result of simply making the seller deliver what he/she sold. Manipulating the market by flooding the market with stock that does not exist to deliver, and gaining the leverage by upsetting the true balance of supply and demand, is.
By law, any short that is executed on behalf of an investor must settle within 3 business days. Rules 15c3-3 and 15c6-1 of the Exchange Act of 1934 spell that out very clearly. Any failure thereafter becomes the liability of he industry members who executed such orders without fully performing the duties of execution.
Wall Street broker dealers will charge the short seller the fee to borrow the security making the liability of the fail for not borrowing the shares the firms. It is this liability that SIFMA seeks to eliminate from the financial service operations and pass on to the investing public.
The only exempted short from the 3-day settlement period are those shorts created by market makers and specialists who are exempted from the 3-day settlement while making a bona-fide market in a security; creating liquidity. However, bona-fide market making laws also maintain that such transactions must be done to address temporary volatility in the market and can not be claimed exempt if it is for a house account under a trading strategy.
Trading into indefinite deliveries is a trading strategy and not a temporary adjustment for market volume volatility.
But Knight Securities, UBS, and other market making firms like Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities look at this differently. "This [eliminating grandfather clause] is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, said of the SEC's planned elimination of the grandfather clause.
There is only one problem with Madoff's assertions.
Making markets is about matching legitimate buyers and sellers and about only creating temporary liquidity when they two can't be matched. Using a naked shorting exemption to sell off securities to unsuspecting buyers, and then failing to make good on delivery of these securities for long indefinite periods in time, is not considered temporary market making. Such a trading strategy is no longer making a bona-fide market but executing a trading strategy. When involved in this type of trading strategy market makers then fall under the same trading guidelines as every other market investor and carry the equivalent risk an investor would carry.
In law, there should never be any legal exemption for market makers in any security to execute a trading strategy that insures risk is only passed on to the investor. Such a legal exemption would be the first step to creating a rigged marketplace and would be the cornerstone to possible market manipulation. To make such concessions into law would disrupt investor confidence in the system and the regulators and have an overall negative impact on our markets.
But to a Wall Street Industry where $57 Million bonuses are being handed out to top executives that produce record earnings, this is exactly what is being expected of industry laws and exactly what the industries top lobbyist is preaching in the very halls of the SEC.
Total Wall Street bonuses, using trading profits as a catalyst, peaked at over $27 Billion for 2006 and still that is not enough. SIFMA, representing the industry, wants more and wants it at investor risk.
Protect us from any possible losses is what the SIFMA is requesting and until now how the SEC has responded favorably. Ultimately what SIFMA really wants is for Wall Street to continue to grow and thus continue to invest heavily in SIFMA's high-powered lobbying efforts.
SIFMA, who claims to represent the interests of nearly 93 Million investors, is actually representing none. SIFMA speaks for the industry interests at the expense of 93 Million investors financial safety.
How the SEC will finally conclude this saga is anyone's guess. They have shown little backbone in standing up to industry lobbyists in the past and may very well cower under industry pressures again. One thing is for sure however, Congress is watching this time and Congress, unlike Commissioner Campos, are seeing the results of the data and have concluded one in three companies is not a small universe of companies after all.
If applied equally, one in three investors would equal more than 30 million people who may have been impacted by this reportedly small problem.
For more on this issue please visit the Host site at www.investigatethesec.com .
Copyright 2006
HDSN 16:04 LEVEL 2 16 CENT ASK
.095 BID highest in days
able nite sbsh hdsn .01 ask
5 mms at .0085 bid HDSN went from blank to .0085
HDSN watching this board now posting .0085 bid
HDSN blank bid yet trades going thru at .009 4 mms at .0085 nite etrd able sbsh
funny ABLE shows up at 10:22 than NITE wakes up after 2 days off at 10:23
thats 1.2 BILLION for 1 mm whats the o/s-auth shares? the stock traded 2.3 BILLION shares in 2006
and nite has not been active since 1/3 after trade 1.2 billion shares in sljb
and today ABLE is MIA