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.
Hunter The bigger question is why would you expect anything different?
The NSS shorts will not cover until they are forced to, until the SEC fines exceed the amount of profit made by selling what they don't have, it will continue as the cost of doing business.
I never have figured out how passing new laws could or would stop crooks from being crooks???.
dabhbmw, I don't think he is saying that at all,
However with all our shares being held in broker street name and we hold broker IOU's in our accounts, you would think that if a stock is revoked that the certs in the street name accounts should automatically be transferred to the rightful owners to clear the promissory notes (IOU'S).
What right does the DTCC have not to return those certs to cover those broker notes? TA or no TA
We are now a private company since the company has not filed BK, therefore we hold shares in that private co, there is no reason that we should be holding representative broker issued IOU'S.
Iv' e often wondered how new laws were ever going to be complied with by those that did not comply with laws already on the books.
In my opinion the shorts will not cover until they are FORCED to.
That would mean that the new law needs to be broken and complaints filed to the deaf ears of the SEC, then and only then would any action be taken (maybe).That could take years to force the crooks to comply, I really don't expect too much change coming.
This law is like telling a currency counterfeiter that he can not use green ink when printing his counterfeit money.
A law that is designed to stop those that are already breaking the law imo has no meaning, however it is a good political move, makes some think that it will correct the situation, well' that remains to be seen.
ib12u, Wow! and I thought you had something stuck in your eye.
AlanC, I think that if the master sleuth's plan ever comes to fruition that you I and a few others can well insure that cover here will happen. just my opinion.
varmit,maybe you are right with this new reg, however I will be very surprised if the brokers and MM's have not found some loop hole, the SEC certainly gave them enough time to develop one.
Before this new reg, brokers just covered any stock dividend with markers, for the markers (Iou's) we all hold in our accounts, that caused any stock dividend to also be shorted.
And unless the brokers put our shares in our registered name and out of their street name, they have not cured the short problem.
I guess we well see shortly lol.
The only way I know of is either a cash dividend or a company sponsored massive cert pull.
op9, lol, I don't know if Megas is in the mix, however I do know there are around 50,000 people that are really looking forward to that outcome.
Hey Texan,In addition to your great analogy and spot on logic. There will never be enough A&B certs issued to cover the total amount of shares that are floating around.
That 5 trillion A/S bait will come home to roost the instant the A's & B's are released and sale begines.
Must admit SevenTenEleven's short interest post, are a witness to shorts digging their hole deeper, the percentages are astounding.
puppydot, No! I don't go, your statement is no where in the link you provided.
If you are going to quote someone then use their exact words, not with added spin you feel that you must inject to mislead
"plus even FFGO said the company was so worthless .. it was not even worth the effort to BK"
puppydot, Please provide your link to that statement by the company.
"plus even FFGO said the company was so worthless .. it was not even worth the effort to BK"
kruy Well I thought it thru as you suggested,and came to the conclusion that anyone can find a negative in any subject as long as they don't have to prove what they say.
What say you?
molson ice, If Megas really had no interest in having this company trade or thought there was no value here, all he had to do was file BK, he would have shed all these problems.
However as you know he didn't do that, there must be a good reason that he hasn't.
I must admit however, that the information I sent him last week, on the alternative trading for private companies, I have not received a reply to date.
What we are up against in demanding our rightfully owned certs, what a screwed system. imo.
Fred says:
September 25, 2010 at 10:35 am
Dr Jim,
The mechanism of exactly why this is powerful information needs to be explained in a simple way. I think it is powerful because a naked short seller can sell at will, driving the price down further, and when the stock is delisted the sellert never needs to deliver any shares.
What need to be understood more fully is the answer to the question why the shares don’t need to be delivered? A buyer can still demand the shares after delisting, right? I fail to see why I can’t demand my shares.
… Fred
Reply
#
Dr. Jim DeCosta says:
September 29, 2010 at 8:04 am
Fred,
Sorry I’m so slow to reply. You do have the right to demand delivery even after a delisting or the revocation of registration. Unless you do it in conjunction with several others, however, it wouldn’t do much good.
The DTC subdivision of the DTCC basically runs a “fractional reserve” custody system. This is legal for banks but not legal for a surrogate legal custodian like the DTC. In a fractional reserve clearance and settlement system all you need to do is get “good form delivery” of enough sold shares to service the delivery demands of those investors insisting on acting as their own “custodian”. The most effective way to expose and combat a fractional reserve system is a “run on the bank” wherein people demand the delivery of more shares than the surrogate legal custodian got “good form delivery” of. Historically, whenever this was done the DTCC simply put a “chill” on the delivery of demanded for shares. UCC Article 8 says that a “security entitlement holder” that bought undelivered shares has the right to file an “entitlement order” demanding delivery of that which he paid for. Unfortunately it did not specify the timeframe in which the surrogate legal custodian must act.
The problem is that the NSCC utilizes both a “Continuous Net Settlement” (CNS) system and a self-replenishing “Automated Stock Borrow Program” or “SBP”. The delivery failure of a party that chronically absolutely refuses to deliver the securities it sold will be “cured” by the delivery to the clearing firm’s NSCC “shares account” of shares from a totally different trade. The result is basically an ultra-fast moving Ponzi scheme wherein the intentional delivery refusals of a small group of criminals are constantly being covered up by the deliveries of shares from other trades. Abusive market makers will suffocate share prices while pretending to be the beneficent “injector of liquidity”.
When Bear Stearns went down the level of delivery failures went up 145-fold and nobody got busted. Six months later as Lehman Brothers went under the delivery failures went up 151-fold. Once again, nobody got busted. Put yourself in the shoes of those buying those shares trying to guess the bottom. Imagine how much they enjoyed this “tsunami of liquidity” being provided by these “beneficent liquidity providers”. Abusive short sellers argue that at least the buyers of the shares they naked short sell get in at lower share price levels than they otherwise would have and they’re exactly right. But half price tickets onto the Titanic are still half price tickets onto the Titanic. There is a point at which “liquidity” is illegally converted into “leverage” and this point is crossed all day every day.
Reply
#
Dr. Jim DeCosta says:
October 10, 2010 at 1:07 pm
This is the unabridged version of the definition of:
“Financial waterboarding”:
the illegal MANIPULATION of share prices downwards via the intentional provision of excess “liquidity” by abusive market makers illegally accessing their “bona fide” MM exemption from effecting a pre-borrow or “locate” before making an admittedly “naked” short sale. Each failure/refusal to deliver results in the crediting to the defrauded investor’s account of a readily sellable share price depressing “security entitlement” as per the terms of UCC Article-8. This increases the “supply” of that which by law (again UCC-8) must be treated as being readily sellable in our markets which in turn manipulates downwards the share price “discovered” via the price discovery process.
The muting of the “effective demand” variable represented by buy orders which should provide a share price buoying effect in an unmanipulated market results in significant price discovery aberrations. The “effective demand” variable represents the buy orders not naked short sold into which are allowed to interact with the ambient “supply” variable to determine/”discover” unmanipulated share prices. When BOTH variables are SIMULTANEOUSLY being manipulated in opposite directions then the share price “discovered” in the price discovery process will be grossly distorted to the down side.
Since the NSCC subdivision of the DTCC merely asks that those that absolutely refuse to deliver the nonexistent securities that they sell merely collateralize the monetary value of their failed delivery obligation then as the share price predictably plummets so too do the “marked to market” collateralization requirements resulting in the defrauded investor’s funds flowing to those that sold but obviously never delivered nonexistent securities.
All of this share price manipulation is typically hidden under the guise that these abusive MMs (and their co-conspiring unregulated hedge funds) are providing theoretically beneficent “liquidity” into the markets of thinly traded securities when in reality this theoretical “liquidity” has illegally been converted into “leverage” utilized to access the funds of financially unsophisticated investors acting under the faulty presumption that unconflicted SROs (like that very same NSCC as well as FINRA) and unconflicted regulators are there to provide investor protection.
The DTCC will posit that abusive short selling is not their fault as it is a “trading” issue and they only get involved AFTER the trade is completed. Baloney, it is their refusal to deal with obviously intentional/”strategic” (Dr. Leslie Boni-2003) delivery failures properly that allows criminals to TRADE in this manner. Their policies and their refusal to buy-in obviously intentional delivery failures forms the foundation for this crime wave. The DTCC and their DTC and NSCC subdivisions collectively have 15 of the 16 sources of legal empowerment to “buy-in” intentional delivery “refusals”. Their attaining a veritable monopoly on these sources of empowerment followed by their refusing to execute buy-ins when indicated enables and facilitates the commission of these frauds. The mandated “buy-in” of intentional delivery “refusals” serves BOTH as the only option available when the seller of securities absolutely refuses to deliver that which he sold and as the ONLY meaningful deterrent to the commission of these crimes in the first place.
2late, Good posting. The way I see it is we purchased nothing more than what the brokers gave us 'Promissory notes' for our cash, It seems pretty obvious that the representing shares that he was to deposit in his broker name did not come from the TA.
So once he took our cash and issued us IOU's where did he get shares to put in his account, I would say he didn't, but he still has our cash and we hold his IOU's, the shares seem to be out of this picture, if he indeed sold us representative bogus shares.
Brokers problem is we have his IOU's.
Our problem is he has our cash.
Megas problem is the brokers put in his street name shares that were never issued.
Now revoked everyone is locked in, would be a great time for a company sponsored cert pull for this private company.
What are brokers doing with any resemblance of shares in their name of a private company and why are we holding his IOU'S
Vianna, Exactly, The SEC has a long history of telegraphing their actions long before the new rules are implemented.
That gives the miscreants plenty of time to establish work around procedures.
The SEC has been in bed with these folks and allowed this fiasco for many years.
IMO until they abolish the creation of IOU's (promissory notes for shares) by the brokers and get back to either delivery of certs, or all held in shareholder names the system, will always have NSS.
dahbmw, Not all true, We being revoked, does not mean that we do not exist. We only lost our registration to trade shares, not the shares/IOU's,which are still in our accounts. We are now a private company, and all holders long and short are still a part of this co.
Being revoked does not relieve the NSS or any other type of short interest of their responsibilities or off the hook, the only way to relieve them of possible covering is if the company filed BK..
There is now a new company that brokers alternitiave trading which includes revoked or private co's
http://gatetechnologies.com/
www.transferonline.com
http://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/qasbsec.htm#eod6
Jan 19, 2011 16:44 ET
GATE Technologies Acquires Global License to Transfer Online's Stock Transfer Agency and Settlement Software
Transaction Ensures Ability to Bring End-to-End Solution for Trading of Illiquid Alternative and Impact Investments
NEW YORK, NY--(Marketwire - January 19, 2011) - GATE Technologies announced today the acquisition of an exclusive license to use Transfer Online's stock transfer and record-keeping software for the trading of alternative and impact investments globally.
"This transaction continues GATE's commitment to developing the best end-to-end solution for the electronic trading of these assets," said Vincent Molinari, co-founder and CEO of GATE.
Transfer Online was founded in 1999 as the first online-only stock transfer agent in the United States, and currently provides stock transfer services to approximately 400 companies. In 2001, the company created the first private trading board ("PTB") for shareholders of Portland Brewing to trade shares with each other, requiring a no-action letter from the SEC to do so. In 2005, Transfer Online built a PTB for Restricted Class B shareholders of Mastercard, Inc., which preceded Mastercard's initial public offering a year later.
The technology is already employed on GATE US, the U.S.-based broker-dealer subsidiary of GATE Technologies. GATE US' electronic trading platform, GATE Pro, was launched in November 2010.
"As illiquid and alternatives trading becomes more frequent and accessible, our partnership with GATE will enhance the experience for market participants by providing faster and more transparent settlement and clearing processes," said Lori Livingston, founder and CEO of Transfer Online. Ms. Livingston is also a co-founder of GATE and serves as its Chief Technology Officer.
Terms of the private transaction were not disclosed.
About GATE Technologies LLC
GATE Technologies is an innovative financial technology company creating a new market infrastructure for bringing efficiency, transparency to the unstructured global alternative asset markets. The company offers fully automated, customizable solutions for qualified investors with value-added content and analytics, transparent execution, and dematerialized settlement, clearing, and depository functions. GATE Developing Markets will work together to create the first global common infrastructure for illiquid securities, with a goal of enabling all market participants. www.gatetechnologies.com
About Transfer Online
Transfer Online, located in Portland, Oregon, is a stock transfer agent and financial services firm. Transfer Online combines the support of a brick and mortar transfer agent with the latest technology to provide their clients with the highest degree of accuracy and speed. With custom built back office applications and a powerful website, Transfer Online makes possible a measure of convenience for the client that is unmatched by paper-only transfer agents. Their team brings decades of Wall Street experience with emphasis on secure recordkeeping and securities processing to facilitate the GATE platform settlement functionality. www.transferonline.com
AlanC, I don't know that the brokers can fill demand request without a TA, I'm still not sure if we have one or not.
I spent two years with E*trade trying to get certs,(another stock) and it wasn't until the sponsored cert pull and the executive delivery, that I finally received them.
AlanC Thanks, Yes I forwarded to TM thanks to mastaflash's help.
As you know the act of obtaining the on line TA would be the first step to enable shareholders an avenue to demand their certs.
I truly believe that the fact we hold broker IOU's, that all those IOU's must be honored, as long as the company has not filed BK. There is no reason for them to hold our certs after revocation IMO.
mastaflash, Did you receive the copy of email I sent to TM?
Do we still have a TA?
And do you have a report with TM?
email me I will send you the info you can check it out to see if there is any chance of getting this stock off square 1, what we have been doing. is not working, the DTC will not allow this to trade as a public co imo.
bobbybdb@yahoo.com
mastaflash, Thanks for the response.
Iou's are the same as a promissory note, from the brokers, their fiduciary responsibility to us for taking our money and depositing our shares in their broker street name is to pay upon demand at market value (bid).
Since we have been revoked there is no reason that the brokers should be holding our shares in their street name.
Therefore we should be able to demand our certs to cover the broker IOU's, remember they still have our cash!
If we demand certs we could then deposit those certs into the alternative account (this is a new concept Nov 2010)) I am talking about if TM was to list his company with these people.
And yes if the brokers come up short on our outstanding IOU's that becomes their problem, to cover those IOU's that (again we paid cash for).
Sure there may be short of shares but they were not short the cash, for EVERY IOU we hold, therefore I see it as the only people thrown under the bus, are the brokers that took our cash for unregistered or counterfeit shares ?
,
Mastaflash, thanks here is an overview, I would really like someone that has had correspondence with TM submit it to him as there would be more chance of him looking at it.I took out the companies names
The technology is already employed on ,,,,,, the U.S.-based broker-dealer subsidiary of ,,,,, ,,. ,,,,,electronic trading platform, ,,, Pro, was launched in November 2010.
"As illiquid and alternatives trading becomes more frequent and accessible, our partnership with ,,,,will enhance the experience for market participants by providing faster and more transparent settlement and clearing processes," said .........., founder and CEO of ......... Online. ........is also a co-founder of ..... and serves as its Chief Technology Officer.
Terms of the private transaction were not disclosed.
About .........
....... is an innovative financial technology company creating a new market infrastructure for bringing efficiency, transparency to the unstructured global alternative asset markets. The company offers fully automated, customizable solutions for qualified investors with value-added content and analytics, transparent execution, and dematerialized settlement, clearing, and depository functions. ..... Developing Markets will work together to create the first global common infrastructure for illiquid securities, with a goal of enabling all market participants
Mastaflash, I wonder if Mr. Megas was apprised of an alternative trading entity (for private companies) without the required use of the DTC, if he would be interested in requesting the SEC to revoke and go private?
I don't know if I post the info here that it won't be deleted, however would like some feed back before I attempt.
Rocket, The "only" reason any stock goes grey is because it fails to trade for 5 consecutive days on the pinks. HGLC I believe was halted, therefore did not trade for the Pink sheet consecutive day requirement
suberizedwrx, All good questions, all I can say "here" is all are still holding their certs and registered with the TA.
Answer to your questions are TBD, the company is still viable a great potential.
Seven I agree, however your findings show that there were 500 mil sold short, where is that short volume as that had to be a seperate transaction i.e 500 mil bought plus 500 mil (99,4%) short = 1 billion shares traded.
I guess I did not explain my point correctly sorry, and thanks for the follow up.
Lebron, In my opinion we did not have a final purchase of 500 million shares, as per the short interest posted by seventeneleven, 99.4% of the total volume turned out to be short intrest.
That tells me that this 500mil buy was all smoker and mirrors, that the MM's are cellar boxing shares, I am surprised however that there was not a follow up action today.
So in reality I feel that in lieu of having a 500 mil retail buy, they in stead ended up with an additional 500mil short possition.
Like I said just my opinion as there is no way to prove it except that short of 99.4% of the total volume has to be a major factor.
The way I see it the total volume is the total of ALL trades both buys and sells, there was a buy for 500 mil there should have been a sell to match, if that was the case then the total volume would have been 1 billion, but you see the 99.4% (shorts ) never showed up on the total volume.
puppydot, When you are in a hole over your head you really need to throw the shovel out,if you keep digging won't cut it.
Outstanding shares = All shares issued by thre company, both Free trading, and Insider held restricted shares.
Insider shares restricted by the requirement of either a SEC form 3 or 4 to indicate the amount of shares that will either be bought or sold, it will be public knowledge prior to to the actual sale.
FLOAT Free trading (no restriction),NOT INSIDER SHARES until the required forms have been filed with the SEC 3 & or 4 and proper notice has been established.
Any person holding 5% or more of the total outstanding shares must file a form 13 and is considered as an insider. Therefor any shares held over 5% will be removed from the float, however are still part and parcel of the QUTSTANDING issued shares
SevenTen, I think Paunch has it figured out, yes this is a typical cellar boxing move imo.
Volume is the total of trades which include all buys and all sells, that being the case of a true buy sell the volume would have been double what it was reported. 500xx buys plus 500xx sells.
What happened is pretty much what I posted to Vianna in my post earlier.
Seems they reached into therir bottomless share buckett and did a little cellar boxing, your DD kinda caught them in the act and is shown as a good example what many have been saying for so long imo.
retiredMM, Nice to see you on board, thanks for your input here.
I am low on post so this may be my last for the day, but to answer your question on my opinion.
First as you know, all shares we as retail buyers are held in street name, and the brokers generate a IOU in our accounts, so in effect we pay our money (CASH), the broker takes our shares and our money then issues an IOU, i.e. promissory note.To to be honored at market value (bid)upon demand.
The broker has the shares to use as he sees fit as they are in his name.
The hypothecation of those street name shares begins when shares are sold without delivery to again generate new IOU's
I would appreciate any other scenario on how that system works as this is my opinion.
I can not answer any further post today as I'm out lol. but thanks
Vianna, Not necessary, the MM's have many shares sitting in street name that are hypothecated, if not they can and will borrow to fill orders.
The last I heard, the sellers were only getting .00001 That would be one gigantic spread if there was a seller for this 500m buyer.
m
puppydot, The system works like this,. If there are no certs to cover shorts, then brokers need to BUY them from the company as the stock being revoked they can not buy from the market, as being revoked it is not trading.
However the company is still viable and has not filed BK, therefor brokers are still locked into a fiduciary responsibility to their clients on their IOU's
The brokers Need money to buy certs to fill demands from clients for their certs,(direct from the company) so the DTCC lends the brokers the funds, the brokers in turn go to the shorting clients with a FED/Margin call,if they do not respond, they will sell shares held as collateral to in turn pay the DTCC back the borrowed funds..
Nothing hard about it.................
puppydot If you re read my post you will confirm that is exactly what I said. And that comes from first hand experience,
Some times it is wise not to tread into something you know nothing about.
What I posted is exactly what I witnessed and participated in, the largest cert pull in market history as a shareholder.
BTW that company is still a private company with thousands of shareholders still holding certs 5 years after being revoked.
Well that sounds good,a revoked stock, that is not BK, otherwise known as a private company.
Then we would have the opportunity to pull all our Certs,just watch the brokers scramble trying to hid the NSS. Look out Fed calls lol.
Ha!! there is no way to hide so money will flow and brokers will scramble.
I say bring it on!!!
I am very familiar with a case that happened that E*Trade sent a company executive from NY to TX hand carried boxes of Certs that he had previously told all his clients were not available.
I doubt that SEC would ever want that scenario to repeat it self, SEC is up to their eye balls in this for turning a blind eye to NSS,as well as the original grandfather clause that was latter rescinded due to shareholder and other pressure.
Guardian, with a approximately 28% spread on every trade you can't expect to many buyers this 5 point spread is ludicrous.
MM's racking almost 28% on every trade, they are the people that is holding this down.
Thanks Rocket (PM)
Rocket,
What is the source of the 7,800% rumor ?
On a re-due of the deal, I think I posted last week about that, that I could not understand why the move to the pinks by MNGl was not a deal /contract breaker, remember we were told that we would be getting into a fully reporting co. that now has gome by the wayside imo.
Knight has a long history of Cellar boxing I would suspect he has a hand in it! IMO
Bikerbob, You are misleading in this statement:
"Then there's the old question? Who has Real Shares and who does not. G
Good Luck with that..."
How many times must it be told that none of us hold any type of shares in our accounts, "Unless you are holding physical Certs all others are held in STREET NAME, that means that all SHARES GOOD OR PHANTOM are held in brokers accounts "NOT OURS"
The brokers have issued IOU"S markers, electronically generated, or whatever you want to call them in our accounts.
THE BROKER BY SO DOING HAS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO HONOR THOSE IOU's UPON DEMAND AT MARKET VALUE!! (BID)
So bottom line no one is holding shares, so there is no "question of whom is holding shares that are not real".
When Western issues the As & B's, they will be issued to the brokers holding FFGO shares in street name, the bokers in turn, will put additional IOU's in our accounts for those A&B's, with the same
fiduciary responsibility to sell on demand at market value. If everyone either sells all the A&B's at once, or they demand all certs, the brokers will then be in a world of hurt, covering of their short will begine, margin call/fed calls WILL BE GENERATED TO THOSE CLIENTS THAT HOLD SHORTS POSITIONS.(either NSS or legal)