Off now to enjoy the rain. Will leave this here for the few who may not be familiar with implementation of SEC rule 17ad-20 and how it adversely affects all of us.
Though HuffPost is not a source I usually trust, they actually provided a good article regarding this problem.
Excerpt:
"The Securities Act of 1933 regulated short selling by imposing an “uptick” rule, which required a stock’s price to be higher than its previous sale price before a short sale could be made; and by forbidding “naked” short selling — selling stocks short without either owning orborrowing them. But the uptick rule was repealed in July 2007; and and an exception created in 2005 turned the rule against “naked” short selling into a sham. The practice was allowed by “market makers” — those brokers agreeing to stand ready to buy and sell a particular stock at a publicly quoted price. The catch is that market makers actually do most of the buying and selling of stock today. Market making is one of those lucrative pursuits of the giant Wall Street banks.

One of the more egregious examples of naked short selling was relayed in a story run on FinancialWire in 2005. A man named Robert Simpson purchased all of the outstanding stock of a small company called Global Links Corporation, totaling a little over one million shares. He put all of this stock in his sock drawer, then watched as 60 million of the company’s shares traded hands over the next two days. Every outstanding share changed hands nearly 60 times in those two days, although they were safely tucked away in his sock drawer. The incident substantiated allegations that a staggering number of “phantom” shares are being traded around by brokers in naked short sales. Short sellers are expected to cover by buying back the stock and returning it to the pool, but Simpson’s 60 million shares were obviously never bought back, since they were never on the market."

For further reading:
https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/985701

Akin to prefacing an insult with,

"Respectfully, kind sir......"

On second thought, more like adding a warning label to plastic bags the size of a playing-card that warns, "This bag is not a toy; may cause suffocation."

And third thought, in this day and time where society's sunk so low as to think with their emotions rather than logic, and to embrace baseless feel-good ideas rather than fact,
it would stand to reason that, without a disclaimer such as "IMHO", no one can any longer determine the difference between a feeling, a fact,
nor an opinion based on fact.
The latter being an oxymoron because all true opinions are rooted somewhat in fact or else they're simply feelings based on emotion.

Disclaimer:
Not my humble opinion.
This is an observation based on reality.

DE, great vid. I've done quite a bit of reading on the topic, particularly HFTs, but the video explains it better....
especially by illustrating how it affects everyday trading activity.
Most probably recall that Renaissance Technologies was once connected to delcath and it was then that many of us learned about the existence of HFTs for the first time.

Your video led me to several other related interviews highlighting dark pools, naked-shorting and overlooked (seemingly acceptable) illegal activities engaged-in by the big-players.
To make things worse, seems that SEC rule 17ad-20 was implemented in early 2000s which was described as an attempt to cut down on paperwork and processing fees needed to document fails-to-deliver when, in actuality, it provides yet another loophole for big naked shorts to circumvent the typical day-to-cover and fail-to-deliver criteria. If indeed the case, that's why we can't depend on daily short reports nor RegSho to accurately reflect the percentage of shorts, nor can we ever be assured that certain shorts will have to cover on any certain day.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what next week holds in store.
I always prepare myself for the worst and hope for the best.

Uh huh.
I see you've stooped to the lows of what you attempted to Tudor me on. Bah hah hahaha
Self righteous Malibudian.

Agreed. And now comes the hades for the company regarding "their" poor choices.

Yes, I could communicate much better with a man with cahones

Imo vs imho = politically correct poppycock. I've never voiced any opinion that didn't have a link or disclaimer that it was based on fact or research.
Everyone thinks they have to "bow down and grunt" before posting an actual opinion.
I still say poppycock :)

Screenshot of original message saved...too late

"Rude awakening" is a threat to the Rap-Hulk?
Definition of "rude awakening"
Merriam Webster:
"surprising and unpleasant discovery that one is mistaken"

You feel a veil of threat by that?
Maybe you better put on your underpants.

It's not necessary that our mountain of evidence be shared on iHub.
You stated that you had a mass of evidence of your own.


.

The website is real, it's legit, it's legal and the content is factual.

You don't think a SH-demand letter is coming?

What does "IMHO" really add to any post? If you're truly opining, you're using facts and not feelings. Why must we be so pc humble and add the disclaimer of "IMHO"
Poppycock!

I never said you were Rap. I called you Rap when you said "send the pic to SEC" as that was the same childish reply that he sent, too. I merely said that your avatar was interchanging with rap and homebrew as well..prob a glitch.
You are welcome to share any messages we've exchanged as I already have.
I can "woo" too.
Yes, my $6000 cannot compare to your $77, 000 but I am not in the same income bracket so that's all relative.
I'm not ashamed of anything I've shared. I'm smarter than to share anything that I wouldn't want known to "strange" strangers.
The vote tally will be reported soon.
I hope everyone gets dune relief.
Unless I'm banned by the iHub powers that be, no one will silence my opinion as you tried to do with your PM's.

New people, you do Not want to get mixed-up with this loser company.

And I will litter it as long as you're permitted to litter it with your baseless, nonsense pumping.

Would they feel the same if they saw your private messages?
You cannot woo someone into going against their true beliefs.
Take your pebble and
Shove it into your your gated community home bidet...where you're protected from affects of the pc you espouse.

Yes indeed, let's let happy thoughts and corny karma trade the reins. JaJaJa

Then don't trudge thru them. Have your friend in Malibu toss a pebble into the surf of Point Dume beach for you to calm your nerves. I've not posted anything that wasn't true or pertinent...unlike you...
TRA LALALALALALA LAH

Aren't you aware that they are able to avoid the fails-to-deliver due to changes in the SEC rules?
That is the problem in a nutshell.
Until that rule it's rescinded, they will Never be able to hold the big-boy naked shorts accountable. They have no day to cover worries, no failure of delivery.

I'm retired and watching the action today more than in the past, but I can post more if you like. I have an hour before I have to start supper.

No, not at all. A rude awakening, grasshoppa, is enlightenment.

You're correct. Until they rescind the rule that allows them to hide and not have to cover, there will Never be an accurate report. And businesses such as delcath (as well as legit companies) will continue to fall victim, as will the shareholders.

You're about to have a rude awakening regarding website.
Nevertheless, I hope we get a bump "true" optimism with the next PR, but I doubt it.
Sincerely hope I'm wrong.

There is a naked-short site. Just not accurate. "Report" may have been the incorrect term.

Even the official Naked Short report is inaccurate.

Need 75% "FOR" to pass. Need nothing to disregard our wishes.

They never lose because they have no cover-day.

Jcors, I agree, but not all illegal shorting is transparent on that site. It's way more than reported.

I don't trust ayrton as
far as I could throw
Hong Kong.

You are correct. But whatever that site shows is inaccurate; it's way more than that my friend. Save your screenshots:)

OTC is notorious for naked shorts who don't have to cover. Want proof?

No way to track illegal shorts who don't have to cover.

FINRA's inaccurate.

TurnTheShip, I've stopped trying to predict Delcath; I just expect the worst and hope for the best.

Yeah they really need to figure out the massive naked-short thing. Smh

I'm right there with you and to the SEC as well.
Don't give up.

Until there's a transparency-based software tracking system put in place, or Rule 17Ad-20 is rescinded, criminal shorts will Never have to cover or worry.
That's very disturbing.

joh64, They do Not have to cover Phantom shares that are Not recorded.

No Fear to Monger once
in Hades.

It doesn't get worse than this.

Waiting to see if next week brings us a little hope.
If not, we're no worse off than we are now.

Anyone else watching the
shady trading activity?

.

Indeed. Fully aware. They receive files from us daily.
Unless they're inundated
with evidence provided by investors, (including email read-receipts and
U.S.Mail signed delivery receipts), their typical protocol is to ignore it....but,
rest assured,
they're inundated.

.

You're absolutely correct about that. Don't know if no one else here knows it, or if they just don't care. Either way, scary stuff.