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.
"nope", you wouldn't object?
Or "nope" you wouldn't approve? And if not, why not?
Why would you object to "naked short selling" performed in a private transaction?
I remember that. There was a huge stink about that as it was going on. As I vaguely recall (I may be mis-remembering this), there was even a point where the warrants were traded W/I while the bankrupted common was still trading and a number of parties were trying to arb it because the old common was so ridiculously priced.
Unfortunately, most firms wouldn't let you play.
There's no need for me to ask. I already know the answer. There is not, and has never been, a company harmed by "naked short selling".
Ever.
As for regulators...
Have you ever met my good friend Ralph Lambiase?
Is that so?
What company did he ever identify that had been harmed by "naked short selling"?
There is one thing, and one thing only, that distinguishes your flavor of "naked short selling" from "regular" short selling and that is the status of the borrowed shares.
In a "regular" short sale, the shares are voluntarily lent. In a "naked short sale", the shares are involuntarily lent.
Now you can gripe all you want about the unfairness of involuntarily lending your shares to a short seller and perhaps have some very good points, especially as they may apply to potential lease income foregone. However, the other problems related to short selling, the taxable status of certain dividends and your proxy rights, are the same for both "regular" short sales and "naked short sales".
And, certainly, no company has ever been harmed by "naked short selling".
He's probably referring to NASD Rule 3370(b)(2)(B).
However, that "rule" is not a "law" and only applies to NASD member firms.
(No, I didn't recommend waiting until 10:22. I thought it'd take another day to get to 222222.)
You guys are silly.
Everyone knows janice is gonna grab it... again.
And that is but one example.
While I have no interest in rehashing the "naked short" vs. "short an OTC derivative" debate once again, the fact remains that anyone who is so inclined and follows specific guidelines can legally and effectively take a short position against a stock without borrowing the shares.
#234567 is the REALLY desirable post.
I'll ask Darren about that the next time I trash his blog...
Sterno and cheap vodka?
I think Darren's got a good recipe for that...
He makes Burrell, Faulk, Reeves, Patch, "O'Brien", and the rest of these goons look really mainstream and normal.
Darren's an old Stratton Oakmont fellow (and announced this quite proudly on Faulk's Guestbook to me about 2 years ago). Once Stratton Oakmont went down, he became a sort of walking sandwich board for the anti-"naked short seller" cause.
I have plenty of links I can share another time, along with some great e-mails from him that I've saved, but you can get a quick taste of the Saunders experience by visiting his blog:
http://financial101.blogspot.com/
Be sure to tell him I sent ya... ;)
You've never encountered Darren Saunders, have you?
You mean you haven't sunk every penny you have into Private Trading Systems, Inc.?
I still don't believe he gets it.
This is a character who got his ass whupped before he got into this "naked short seller" racket because someone, somewhere, seems to have sold him on the idea of following charts to make money in the markets. His utter surprise that stocks would move contrary to the way the "charts said they should" put him on the path to finding the culprit that had relieved him of his hard-earned money. (Of course, it couldn't be his own stupidity.)
This is a character who, despite no ability whatsoever to read or understand a set of financials, has the audacity to entitle a portion of his website "Investing 101", as if you could possibly learn even the basic tenets of investing from him or the whackjobs who have contributed to his site.
That he is a danger to himself is not so remarkable. There is no shortage of investors out there who have destroyed their own investment portfolios through ignorance and ineptitude. That he invites you to embrace ignorance and stupidity is what makes him a truly despicable individual and worthy of your scorn and ridicule.
Oh, he never follows through with his threats to sue.
Trust me. I would know.
Why would you listen to any of that crap in the first place?
You know, I have to admit, I really love the "Help Me Fight This Evil Battle" shtick. Honestly, acca, I do.
There's this one dickhead who posts on a number of boards... his handle of choice is "x3xsoldierx3x" or something silly along those lines... has a cute little signature that says, "MM's: "There's a place in this war for everyone. Yours just happens to be six feet under."... who is constantly talking about needing help to "fight this battle".
The two of you could easily be, like, blood-brothers or something.
How exactly do you "fight this evil battle"? By posting yet more nonsense on message boards? By downloading and listening to yet another STOOPID (with a capital "OO") Willy Wizard MP3 where he drunkenly explains to you how the $300 worth of CMKM Diamonds you bought last year is going to be worth eleventy jillion dollars by the end of the year? By wasting $27 on Mark Faulk's worthless narrative about the CMKM Diamonds saga?
How exactly does someone go about helping you "fight this battle" that restores what previous land claims CMKM Diamonds might have had? What can a limpdick like you or anyone else silly enough to listen to your trash do to bring CMKM Diamonds' financials current and to get them eligible for a listing on another exchange? How can you possibly recreate the value that's been destroyed by the people who were at the helm of this company for the past three years?
What precisely shall you have these mullets do, acca?
This was inevitable and should have been foreseen by all of us. The head CMKM Diamonds mullets are like the Khmer Rouge in a lot of ways.
Now that the famine's finally taking hold, it shouldn't surprise you to see them eating their young.
Why should frizzlebee get fed up?
He punched a very nice meal ticket at the expense of the mullets.
Very, very good point. You don't wanna be robo-tripping if you're a poor CYP2D6 metabolizer. Furthermore, you'll want to be cautious of ingesting too much acetaminophen if you're looking to pharmocologically dumb yourself down to CMKM Diamonds shareholders levels.
Have you tried mixing it in Dewars?
It packs an awesome buzz.
Sounds a bit like a portfolio manager who foolishly went long Overstock.
My favorite would have to be Dave Patch's persistent "teh".
"You have two separate types of companies" that talk about naked short selling, said Mark Faulk, an Oklahoma City-based author preparing to release a book later this year about CMKM. "This company, by my estimation, is not a good poster child for the problems associated with naked short selling."
It's a shame Shanley didn't then say to the Faulking Idiot, "Can you give us a good 'poster child' for the problems associated with naked short selling?"
The Faulking Idiot hasn't found one yet.
Faulk has futilely tried for years to find a company harmed by "naked short selling". He wasn't capable of performing due diligence before he was introduced to CMKM Diamonds. There's no reason to believe that would change.
The U S OF A is not going to stop you from putting a handgun in your mouth and pulling the trigger.
On the one hand, MEK is definitely not a penny scam. They are a real company and they make money.
However, they do sport a market cap of nearly $200 million. We might debate whether or not that's a fair price tag given their financials...
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882154/000095015206006836/l21748ae10vq.htm
...but obviously this company has not been harmed by "naked short sellers".
As for Nanopierce (n/k/a Vyta Corp), well...
Hold your nose first.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/827161/000114036106014497/form10ksb.txt
To get a real feel for what a whackjob Faulk is, you should check out the show he did on Alex Merklinger's "Mysteries of the Mind" back in June '05. (It's still on the net.) My favorite part was when he talked about getting into the NSS racket because the stocks he was following didn't trade the way the charts said they should.
Crop circles.
UFO's.
Vitamin police.
and
Naked Short selling.
What a wonderful combination.
I don't think those guys were so dumb afterall.
How many mullets did Frizzell shake down with his "Phase I" and "Phase II" Chinese fire drills?
And didn't Martin, through "OG" or whatever that sham was called, then go on to start touting other pinksheet disasters?
I think they found a fertile field of suckers and harvested it.
Does anyone REALLY believe that dickhead got an advance to write that piece of trash?
I just wish one of those "experts" would cite ONE example of how this practice can "seriously damage" an individual stock.
Then there was the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stayed up nights wondering if there really is a dog...
Are you telling me that you view our capital markets as a charity ward for those enterprises that keep rifling through all of their working capital?
There is nothing about a short position, "naked" or otherwise, that keeps a company from creating value for their shareholders. And there has never been, despite what kind of tripe you may have been fed by the likes of Faulk, a company that was ever bankrupted by short selling.
Never.
Maheu was a hood ornament.
Go look at his testimony at the revocation hearings. He had no idea what was happening at CMKM Diamonds and couldn't even justify his $40k/month compensation package.
I wouldn't be so sure about that. This is just the Faulk version of Frizzie's $25 handjobs. There is no legal reason for him not to finish it, even if the contents are fictitious, and get his own bit of flesh off the collective CMKM Diamonds shareholder carcass.
On the contrary. Whether a company I naked short is a scam or not, I'm doing an investor a favor: He or she is getting shares at a lower price than they would have been able to get without my presence.
If the company is a legitimate, money-generating enterprise, then the investor earns a higher return on their capital than they would have otherwised earned without the presence of short sellers ("naked" or otherwise).
And if, as is so often the case, the company in question is a pump'n'dump scam, then investors lose a little less than they would have lost had there been no short sellers involved.
Unfortunately, when faced with lower prices, too many naive investors will just increase the number of shares they'll buy in these dung heaps. So you get a lot of goofballs left holding certificates for tens of millions of shares that are worth...
zero.
It is one of the few tools available, and not a very good one at that, to keep the uninitiated and misinformed from being ripped off by pump'n'dump artists.