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.
<<I've seen Codes of Ethics for most of my life. We just had a suggestion for a new code of ethics in my state ... proposed by a team operating under a franchise created in, I believe, 1978. Their past efforts to foster ethical behavior have failed and now they are making a new attempt. The new code was proposed on virtually the same day that someone who worked on the text of a new law to stop "Pay for Play" in our state wrote a memo to one of the political parties explaining how to evade the very law he'd helped draft>>
No matter how hard we try, you cannot create ethics or integrity through rules. It is always the first option people look to even though it should be the last one. All rules do is provide a framework for finding a way around them. We then end up with more rules and more efforts to work around them. It is a never ending cycle and one of the great flaws of our government. We are generally based on principles, not rules and it is the principles that ought to guide us and not someone's anecdotally justified rule.
Too many rules end up causing everyone to try and find a way around some rule and we end up with no one really respecting any rule because they or someone they know has tried to find away around some rule that someone else thought should be imposed on everyone else.
Rather than charging her with a crime, they should have encouraged her to sell more. Happy people are usually better people and, well, I had better stop there....
Some initial thoughts....and I am sure I will have more as I read more on this Board.
Our system of leadership has traditionally claimed the premise that public service is a noble undertaking engaged in by those who care more about the good of others and the whole than themselves. Unfortunately, however, in reality, this altruistic premise has little relationship to reality. It is unrealistic to expect that some portion of our leaders will not see leadership as a stepping stone to personal gain rather than as an end in and of itself. If we do not want people to use elected office as a financial stepping stone, we had better make the office itself financially secure so that people need not look for other opportunities to satisfy inherent financial requirements. The noble goals will not raise a family or make a house payment.
Second, we miss the opportunity to have some of the truly best and brightest be our leaders because we refuse to compensate them directly. For example, in Texas, state legislators get paid somewhere around $6500 a year. Such an inherently inadequate financial reward ensures that they have to make their living elsewhere and must trade on their leadership status to do so. I cannot count the numbers of people I have seen seek elected office simply because of the indirect or future financial opportunity it will guarantee them. I know a lawyer who ran for city council because he had seen others do so and have their legal business explode overnight. His gross annual income went from $200K a year to over $1M a year when he got elected. I know a number of people who have taken low paying judicial positions simply because they knew that after a few years in the position they could leave and obtain employment that would pay them several times what they were capable of making before they were a judge. Many people refuse to even consider any job in the public sector because the monetary compensation is insufficient.
By way of comparison, the local school superintendent makes around $240K a year, but judges in this state generally get paid $90K to $120K a year. When a first year lawyer going to work for a big firm will be paid $110K to $130K and a partner will make $300K+, one has to wonder little why we end up with many judges who no one would include among the best and the brightest.
My point is that if we want to be able to select elected leaders from the pool of the best and brightest, then we had better be willing to pay them accordingly so that they have no need to look elsewhere for financial stability. We cannot choose from the best unless the best want to be chosen.
Federal judges, with lifetime positions and decent, though still relatively inadequate, salaries are, as a group, among the least corrupt public servants you will ever find. Most do not find their way into the position until they have already demonstrated the success and qualities that make them fit for the job. They undergo meaningful screenings and background checks that weed out most of those who have no business in the position. I cannot say as much about many, if not most, of our elected officials.
The monetary issues aside for now, here are some radical ideas to think about. Much of this is thinking out loud and I am not certain that they are all good ideas, but they are ideas nonetheless.
Voting should be a mandatory obligation. Voter education should begin much earlier than a high-school senior year class on government, usually split with economics. How we can we expect people to know enough to make intelligent choices, if we make no meaningful effort teach them at a time when they are receptive to learning?
Eliminate political parties. They drive agendas, often on both sides to extremes, that have little to do with the overall good and are usually little more than divisive. Political parties institutionalize ignorance. Why make an effort to learn about something when you can just rely on someone else's biased and judgment? Winning and losing to these institutions becomes more important than quality. They become their own form of self-sustaining bureaucratic nightmares.
Citizens' expectations of the role of the government need to change and the government (and the elected leaders that run it) need to learn how to say no. Rather than asking what the government can or will do for them, which is what we all ask in one form another at one time or another, we need to be asking whether government action of any kind is really in the best interest of everyone. We need to find ways to be more self sufficient and depend less on the government to decide for us. More and more aspects of our daily lives are monitored by the government every day. Orwell, where are you?
Political office ought to require experience in political or elected office. For example, someone should not be able to run for city council without having been elected to a homeowner's association board or some kind of position that requires such skills. I don't know how this could be implemented as a practical matter, but family name ought not be enough to get someone elected (Bush) just as being personable (Clinton) ought not be a significant consideration. Experience (following integrity and wisdom) ought to be much more important.
Statesmanship ought not be a dirty word. Compromise ought not be considered a defeat. Doing nothing ought to be the first viable option. Getting elected ought not be more important than doing the right thing -- even though they are frequently in conflict.
Candidates for any elected office ought to be screened in some way before being eligible to seek such office. We have a large enough pool to choose from that we loose little by weeding out those who would rather not undergo such screening. It works very well for federal judges, at least on the integrity side, it might work well for elected offices as well.
Getting elected ought not be a function of who buys you first or most. We elected some darn good leaders before it cost millions to run television campaigns -- campaigns that are now more about the opponent's problems than the candidates virtues. The Internet may, over the long term, help to address some of this issue -- at least with respect to the money issues.
Only one thing is certain: no single magic solution will fix it all. The problems are intertwined and the solutions will need to be as well.
Nuff for now....
One of the things I plan on doing is AIMing some stocks in one of the Folios, about just like you described, but at more than $100 each and not 50 stocks to start it out -- around 20 to start with along with some ETFs. It makes it easier to get into a new stock when you can do it for a few hundred dollars rather than having to have thousands or more for each one to not get killed on commissions.
Flexibility and diversification never hurt.
I had originally planned on getting a Suburban or Yukon and, like you, really liked the LT package. I liked the SLT package on the Yukon XL ever more.
Because of blowing a motor in my Chrysler convertible, I ended up with a rental F-150, base model, for about two months. I had never imagined that I would have considered a pick up of any kind, but with my size (6'8" -- 250 pounds), I fell in serious lust with the spacious room. Of course, the base model had the bench seat. The only thing I do not like about the King Ranch F-150 SuperCrew is the massive loss of space because of the console. But, something has to go between the bucket seats.
A friend of mine bought his wife a 350, dually, diesel with the King Ranch leather ($50K+) primarily for her to use hauling the large horse trailer. She ended up putting sheep skin covers over the leather to protect it. It is nice, but it does scratch easily.
The new F-150 really rides nicely -- at least in the front seats. Feels like driving a car but from several feet higher. I am told that the back seats are a bit bumpy. It has enough bells and whistles to keep me happy and I really use the power mirror retraction and back up sensors for the tight fit in the garage. The power sliding rear window is a nice bell, but gets used only to show it off. The audio is basic, at best, and I need to find some way to boost it up a bit. I wish now that the one I found had had the audiophile package at +$250.
I am glad that I bought it and not the Yukon or Suburban. We have used the bed far more than we thought we would and the full-size back seat is plenty large enough to hold almost anything we would have loaded in the back of a Yukon.
Your point regarding the choice of charges may very well be correct. I suspect (and this is just a guess since I don't have the kind of information necessary to really know) that the DOJ thought that they could accomplish their goal (and they have even with the reversal) more easily with the charges they brought than with a complex RICO accounting case. I also suspect that the indictment was brought when and how it was because someone was pissed at how AA, as an entity, was acting or reacting to the ongoing investigation. It is unusual, though certainly not unheard of, for companies to be indicted except to provide a plea mechanism to protect individuals from prosecution. That is, usually, though not always, the company takes a dive on a plea so the individuals don't have to. Much more commonly, they go after the individuals and leave the company alone. Obviously, there were dynamics at play here that interfered with that scenario. Document destruction has some visceral appeal. In hindsight, they may have picked wrong. Realistically, I suspect that some thought that it would be an easy case to make under the circumstances and it may have been, but they clearly got greedy and started playing a little too fast and loose during trial. It was clearly not as easy as they expected. AA had some good lawyers and many cases get lost because one side or the other underestimates their opponent.
As to NACDL, it files amicus briefs in almost every criminal case heard at the SCOTUS. In reality, the amicus brief is written by a private lawyer for NACDL. I wish that NACDL had staff lawyers on hand to crank out such briefs, but the lawyers who write them are usually ones who are already interested in and have an intimate working knowledge of the issues. There is no doubt that had the SCOTUS affirmed the jury charge in Anderson, lawyers, businessmen, and citizens everywhere would have been at risk for following document destruction policies -- or even, potentially, for creating or advising a company to create one. I suspect that these policy issues were influential to some judges, even if they would have reached the same ultimate conclusion anyway, in their decision to join Rehnquist's opinion, which was unusually broad for him.
This will be an interesting case to look back at down the road, perhaps in 20 or so years, when retiring judges papers and experiences get released and published. One final thing, as a caveat: most of my suspicions about some of the background noise attendant to the AA case are no more than educated guesses and good be completely wrong.
Sorry if you think it is okay to make false or exaggerated statements of alleged fact and not expect someone to point out the inaccuracies. Feel free to ignore me if you like. No skin off my butt. But, don't expect me to ignore blatantly inaccurate statements of alleged fact -- especially with regard to legal matters. I will, however, try to be better at softening the appearance. I guess the form is more important than the substance?
Had you stated that alleged legal experts had called it a technicality, and I doubt anyone who is really an expert would have called it that although I don't doubt that some uninformed talking heads actually called it that, I would have addressed it to their comments. But, you did not do so. You stated it as though it was fact and as though you knew something about it -- and it was not and you apparently did not.
I noticed that you apparently have no quarrel with the ultimate inaccuracy of your statements. Here is an editorial: attacking the messenger rather than the message is the epitome of editorializing regarding someone's posts. I don't mind the editorializing and everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if it has no factual basis, but I don't suffer well the "do as I say not as I do" approach.
I called you no names, made no personal references, and addressed all of my comments to the substance of your comments and not at you, personally, in any way. Sorry if you read it otherwise.
Most of the misguided eventually appreciate guidance, even if it takes them a while to realize it. It took you a while, but you eventually woke up to the reality of NVEI; maybe he and others will at some point as well. I hope they all make a million, but I would not hold my breath or their wallets.
Find one of Matt's posts on this board and direct your post directly to him so he will see it and I'd bet he will accommodate you.
<<Still hard to believe I picked a Chevy truck, but none of the competition has anything that can hold a candle to the LT interior.>>
Did you look at the King Ranch leather package on the Ford F series. I love my new F-150 SuperCrew with the King Ranch leather. Would not have bought it but for the great leather.
<<The Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean Andersen is not guilty. The justices threw out the conviction due to a technicality. They do this on many of the cases they hear.>>
It is hardly a technicality to tell a jury that they can convict without finding or needing to find that a crime occurred, which is exactly what happened. For example:
"[T]he jury instructions at issue simply failed to convey the requisite consciousness of wrongdoing. Indeed, it is striking how little culpability the instructions required. For example, the jury was told that, “even if [petitioner] honestly and sincerely believed that its conduct was lawful, you may find [petitioner] guilty.” App. JA—213. The instructions also diluted the meaning of “corruptly” so that it covered innocent conduct. Id., at JA—212."
What happened in this case would be like telling a jury to convict a company of fraud if and just because the jury did not like the way the company did business -- without regard to and regardless of whether there was actual fraud. Under this standard, some people on IHUB (and most on RB) would be convicted daily of fraud.
Moreover, the jury that heard this case seemed to have more than a few problems finding guilt. They deliberated for 10 days, including for 3 days after they told the judge they were hopelessly deadlocked.
If nothing else, the fact that the decision was 9-0 (which although not unheard of, is a pretty uncommon event with this court -- even though I lost one up there two years ago 9-0 so I wish it was even rarer) and was written by Rehnquist ought to be a pretty good indication that this was not even a close call and was far from a simple technicality.
The full opinion is here:
http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-368.ZO.html
While the Supreme Court's ruling does not automatically mean that Anderson was not guilty, the Supreme Court seemed pretty convinced that under the circumstances a conviction would have been unlikely without the screwy and illegal instructions given to the jury. Given that the government was so adamant about not charging the government in a way that might result in an acquittal (i.e., the proper way), it is doubtful that the government thought they could get an acquittal with a jury charge that actually made the jury find that a crime had been committed.
One final point: the Supreme Court does not "do this [reverse on technicalities] on many of the cases they hear." I will resist the temptation to editorialize on the massive inaccuracy of such a statement -- it is sufficient here simply to note that it is simply, plainly, and demonstrably wrong for all kinds of reasons.
Mine too -- lots of stuff from the late 50's through the midish 70's makes for good listening.
I don't think this link will work outside of AOL, but it is one of my alltime favorites, even if it is a bit silly and not even close to a pop hit, although it did get some play time in the early 1970s. Edit -- it works for me, bit I am using AOL.
The Unicorn Song -- The Irish Rivers
[Suppressed Sound Link]
Good music, Gary.
test
A 100k grub to add to the collection...
#msg-6538201
In the spirit of grubs and grubbing, check out the pics on this board.
#board-2048
<<Troy and I have had lots of fun on the Jail Board together.>>
Very true -- but I am trying to avoid that place these days. Truly too time consuming.....
Been away from IHub for a while, but have some extra time right now, so I am spending a bit more time here for a while.
I figured that half of the prize, which I really did not know existed, ought to stay on this board -- especially since one of the people who are regulars here was probably the one who got screwed out of it by me sweeping it to grab it. ;)
IRISHBULL was the first after-post, but he is already grandfathered so it was of no use to him. cbfromli was the next post, he asked first, and he was the first to say hello, so he got half of it.
I at least tried to make the set up posts directly on topic, so it was not a totally gnarly grub grab.
<<I tried going there and I need a premium subscription to access that board! Can you change it to a free access board?>>
I cannot get it moved to the free zone, but I can do one even better.
I just won a free year's premium membership for picking up a 100K grub on another board. Since I am grandfathered, I don't need it. I gave six months of it away to someone on that Board, who I probably screwed out of the grub anyway, and you get the other six months of it.
You just never know when trying to help someone out will pay dividends. Enjoy.
Edit -- it ought to kick in tonight or tomorrow sometime.
Just to validate the point that one does not get what one does not ask for -- you get six months of it.
The other six months of it is going to AIMster, for attempting to help me out on something, but being unable to post directly to the premium board where the subject was being discussed.
I have been around for a while, but been gone for a while too.
Did not realize there was a prize for it other than meaningless bragging rights.
And to top it off -- the six digit palindrome....
Edit -- oops..guess I missed that one.
The ultimate fun -- Gruba Rub Dub the 100K grub --always on IHub
"Yes dear" and some alcohol says it all.
Edit -- five of a kind grub....
World's Longest-Married Couple Reveal Secrets
LONDON (May 31) - A British couple who hold the world record for the longest marriage said on Wednesday their success was down to a glass of whisky, a glass of sherry and the word "sorry".
Percy and Florence Arrowsmith married on June 1, 1925 and will celebrate their 80th anniversary on Wednesday.
The Guinness World Records said on Tuesday the couple held the title for the longest marriage and also for the oldest married couple's aggregate age.
"I think we're very blessed," Florence, 100, told the BBC. "We still love one another, that's the most important part."
Asked for their secret, Florence said you must never be afraid to say "sorry".
"You must never go to sleep bad friends," she said, while Percy, 105, said his secret to marital bliss was just two words: "Yes dear".
The couple have three children, six grandchildren and nine great-grandchildren and are planning a party soon.
"I like sherry at lunch time and whisky at night and I'm looking forward very much to my party," said Florence.
This is a funny one:
http://upchucky.net/~upchucky/flash-fun/farmer-donkey.swf
Cross posted from another Board....
<<Could you help me out here and provide me with an example or examples of who would benefit from these window trades?>>
Absolutely and I'll use me and some of my investment money as an example. Some of my investment money is allocated as a fixed amount of money every month to a variety of direct stock purchases and mutual funds. Most of the DIPs and DRIPs have fixed fee schedules, although some are fee free, which make minimum monthly purchases a necessity in order for the fee to not disproportionately eat up the stock purchase. Those purchases get made by the company on its predetermined day and with no control by me over the timing or price. But, because of a desire to spread the money over a variety of stocks, each individual purchase is smaller than would be practical for a regular trade. Each purchase buys anywhere from a fraction of a share to several shares, obviously depending on the stock's price relative to the amount invested. For the most part, this is money that I am happy to let sit for years if not decades (although the decades time frame just barely qualifies as true anymore).
But, the universe of stocks that are available for purchase with this money is far more limited than I would like and I would like to be able to diversify this money further. I would also rather invest it directly in stocks or ETFs than in mutual funds. I would also like the ability to sell without having to go through the hassle and cost required by most DIPs and DRIPs. I would also like the ability to have some timing (even if it is not perfect) available to me with these stocks. I would also like the flexibility to choose from day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month to change the allocation between these stocks. Folio-fn will let me do this on the fly rather than having to deal, individually, with a lot of different companies. It saves me time and gives me greater flexibility.
If all there was to the Folio-fn program was the window trades, then it would not be worth anything near what they charge for it -- at least at the $399 annual level. But, at least for me, the window trades provide an alternative to fixed monthly deposits to a variety of DIPs, DRIPs, and mutual funds with far greater flexibility and diversification. Plus, by having 10 free regular trades (outside of the window stocks and trading) available a month for no charge and additional trades for $4, I am able to get out of any position at any time if I choose to do so -- even if the stock was bought through a window trade. Thus, if the proverbial bottom fell out (like ABRX, which I fortunately did not own), I can trade every share I own (at least the full shares) through a regular trade and not have to wait for the next window trading opportunity. The same is true on the buying end: if I see a drop as an immediate buying opportunity, I can buy it through a regular trade even if all of my other trades in it were window trades.
I agree that Folio-fn's window trades are not appropriate for someone actively or day trading stocks because they do not provide the flexibility needed to buy and sell immediately. But, I do not day trade (at least not 98% of the time since I learned years ago that I generally suck at day trading). I also agree that Folio-fn's window trading program is not appropriate for someone wanting to trade stocks that fall outside of their group of window stocks (which would include most penny stocks) -- unless the person is making at least 10 trades a month each and every month (which still works out to about $3.33 a trade in commissions).
For my trading money (and it is limited position trading), the available regular trades (10 a month, 120 a year) are more than sufficient to satisfy my needs, and even on the few occasions a year when they may not be, the $4 trade price is still a good deal.
At least for me, this is not just about saving commission money (although it will save me some). It is about diversification and greater flexibility than I now have with some of my investment money.
Finally, I can make no comment, yet, about the quality of their fills on regular trades since I have not experienced it. They could suck or they could be as good as most if not all others. I will agree that there is little more frustrating that wanting a fill NOW (within seconds) and not having it happen as a price moves against you. Been there, done that.
I am in the process of opening an account and moving funds into it. If the fills on regular trades are terrible, I will happily say so. For this reason, as well, I am not yet closing my other brokerage account where the commissions are higher, but the fills are very good.
<<Could you help me out here and provide me with an example or examples of who would benefit from these window trades?>>
Absolutely and I'll use me and some of my investment money as an example. Some of my investment money is allocated as a fixed amount of money every month to a variety of direct stock purchases and mutual funds. Most of the DIPs and DRIPs have fixed fee schedules, although some are fee free, which make minimum monthly purchases a necessity in order for the fee to not disproportionately eat up the stock purchase. Those purchases get made by the company on its predetermined day and with no control by me over the timing or price. But, because of a desire to spread the money over a variety of stocks, each individual purchase is smaller than would be practical for a regular trade. Each purchase buys anywhere from a fraction of a share to several shares, obviously depending on the stock's price relative to the amount invested. For the most part, this is money that I am happy to let sit for years if not decades (although the decades time frame just barely qualifies as true anymore).
But, the universe of stocks that are available for purchase with this money is far more limited than I would like and I would like to be able to diversify this money further. I would also rather invest it directly in stocks or ETFs than in mutual funds. I would also like the ability to sell without having to go through the hassle and cost required by most DIPs and DRIPs. I would also like the ability to have some timing (even if it is not perfect) available to me with these stocks. I would also like the flexibility to choose from day-to-day, week-to-week or month-to-month to change the allocation between these stocks. Folio-fn will let me do this on the fly rather than having to deal, individually, with a lot of different companies. It saves me time and gives me greater flexibility.
If all there was to the Folio-fn program was the window trades, then it would not be worth anything near what they charge for it -- at least at the $399 annual level. But, at least for me, the window trades provide an alternative to fixed monthly deposits to a variety of DIPs, DRIPs, and mutual funds with far greater flexibility and diversification. Plus, by having 10 free regular trades (outside of the window stocks and trading) available a month for no charge and additional trades for $4, I am able to get out of any position at any time if I choose to do so -- even if the stock was bought through a window trade. Thus, if the proverbial bottom fell out (like ABRX, which I fortunately did not own), I can trade every share I own (at least the full shares) through a regular trade and not have to wait for the next window trading opportunity. The same is true on the buying end: if I see a drop as an immediate buying opportunity, I can buy it through a regular trade even if all of my other trades in it were window trades.
I agree that Folio-fn's window trades are not appropriate for someone actively or day trading stocks because they do not provide the flexibility needed to buy and sell immediately. But, I do not day trade (at least not 98% of the time since I learned years ago that I generally suck at day trading). I also agree that Folio-fn's window trading program is not appropriate for someone wanting to trade stocks that fall outside of their group of window stocks (which would include most penny stocks) -- unless the person is making at least 10 trades a month each and every month (which still works out to about $3.33 a trade in commissions).
For my trading money (and it is limited position trading), the available regular trades (10 a month, 120 a year) are more than sufficient to satisfy my needs, and even on the few occasions a year when they may not be, the $4 trade price is still a good deal.
At least for me, this is not just about saving commission money (although it will save me some). It is about diversification and greater flexibility than I now have with some of my investment money.
Finally, I can make no comment, yet, about the quality of their fills on regular trades since I have not experienced it. They could suck or they could be as good as most if not all others. I will agree that there is little more frustrating that wanting a fill NOW (within seconds) and not having it happen as a price moves against you. Been there, done that.
I am in the process of opening an account and moving funds into it. If the fills on regular trades are terrible, I will happily say so. For this reason, as well, I am not yet closing my other brokerage account where the commissions are higher, but the fills are very good.
This case was ultimately dismissed.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/21/national/main630977.shtml
Charges Dropped For 'Tupperware' Sex Toy Temptress
CLEBURNE, Texas - An obscenity charge has been dropped against a woman who received nationwide attention when she was arrested for selling two sex toys to undercover police officers posing as a couple.
A judge dismissed the case against Joanne Webb, Johnson County Attorney Bill Moore said Friday in a statement. He said he asked the judge for the dismissal to prevent wasting county resources, but didn't say when the dismissal occurred.
No one answered the phone at Moore's office Saturday morning.
Webb, a former fifth-grade teacher, started selling erotic toys and other adult products last year. The Passion Parties Inc. consultant hosts what she calls Tupperware-type parties for suburban housewives who feel more comfortable buying marital aids in a private home than at an adult bookstore or on the Internet.
Webb was arrested Nov. 13, about a month after the undercover officers approached her at her husband's business in Burleson, about 10 miles south of Fort Worth, and bought two products. Had she been convicted of violating Texas' obscenity law, she could have been sentenced to a year in jail.
Webb's attorney, BeAnn Sisemore, said she and her client are pleased with the dismissal.
"We knew that it was a possibility, but we weren't contacted," she told the Cleburne Times-Review for its Sunday edition.
According to the state's obscenity code, an obscene device is a simulated sexual organ or an item designed to stimulate the genitals. Adult stores get around the law by posting signs that say "sold only as novelties."
Moore said a pending federal lawsuit filed by Sisemore would determine the constitutionality of the obscenity statute Webb was accused of violating.
©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Nice manifesto on how to make friends and influence people. I particularly liked this line:
<<Clearly, if this comes to past, it is a case of fraud.>>
Are you without milk? Maybe have too much lactose? Is there a secret fat-free or skim relationship we should all be aware of?
<<Bottom line... it's a mess.>>
With that, almost everyone agrees.
Those who bought and sold for a profit and are completely out think it was prettty darn good situation and not a mess -- at least so long as they get to keep their profits.
It has not been that long ago, relatively speaking, when 1 billion authorized shares would have seemed silly.
I can remember the days when 100 million shares, and later 1 billion shares, traded in the entire market was a record setting day, although as to the 100 million, that has, admittedly, been more than just a few years ago.
I have little doubt that 1 trillion a day will happen in my lifetime.
<<Rule 203 requires a "Hard to Borrow" list.>>
Other than what I read in what you posted, I have not studied Rule 203. But, that said, the stuff you posted does not require a "Hard to Borrow" list.
"Broker-dealers create "Hard to Borrow" lists to identify securities that are in limited supply. Thus, locates for securities on "Hard to Borrow" lists are likely to be difficult. However, the fact that a particular lender placed certain securities on a "Hard to Borrow" list cannot be taken to mean that the lender represents that securities that are not on the "Hard to Borrow" list are easy to borrow. Commenters viewed "Hard to Borrow" lists with circumspection,63 and we understand that such lists are not widely used by broker-dealers. Therefore, the fact that a security is not on a hard to borrow list cannot satisfy the "reasonable grounds" test of Rule 203(b)(1)(ii)."
It may be that the securities (3 million shares according to the GVRP press release) showed up in someone's account because either the company or the transfer agent screwed up. If this account was governed by a form agreement that provided that absent express restriction of the securities being available for short borrowing, the broker could lend them, then it may have appeared that they were available for the broker to take a short position. The securities could have been in the account with legal restrictions (although they should not have been distributed until the payable date) and the broker did not notice or check into whether they were restricted.
I would bet that (and this is just speculation) that there were no restrictions on them and that they were, inadvertently or otherwise, transferred when they should not have been, either by a company authorization or a screw up at the transfer agent, so that they showed up in the relevant account as unrestricted securities and thus seemed to be available for borrowing or sale.
<<where have you been last 2 weeks?>>
Under a rock, of course.
Is it something HUGE that Susie would be interested in?
Do tell.....
<<We should be talking to boating, fishing, and outdoors companies.>>
Some of the more "colorful" magazines might consider some outdoor shoots.
Just think of the poor slob whose broker's flat trading fees are capped out at 1000 or 5000 shares. There were a lot of what appeared to be 9 million share trades. At .01 a share after the first 5K shares, the trading fees for the 9 million shares would only be $89,950. They guy who paid $5 to trade the 200, 500 or even 5000 share lots (all worth a fraction of one cent) would be getting a bargain at those rates.
It could not possibly have been on the balance sheet if the computers could not count that high....they had ot take it off the balance sheet to finish the counting.
Maybe I will suggest that to some of the counsel currently in trial on one of the cases. I'm sure they'd adopt it with no problems. The best defense, of course, is the one that no one understands enough about to make a factual claim that it is not true. That also holds true for some government prosecutions.