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.
C'mon, Rufus! We need more imaginary bonds! We need more imaginary shorts! We need more bogus promises! The stock is faaallllliiinnnngggggg.
The reset was a LIE. The halt was a LIE. The $15 guarantee was a LIE (just try to sell your shares for the price prior to the split).
Man, you're not very good at math are you.
15/X -X is the ratio.
If the share price is $75, you get 15/75 - 75 which is a very negative number. Ooops. I guess they're not planning on a big increase between now and then.
If the price is $1, you get 15/1-1 or 14x times your old shares. If you had 1 share before, you'll be issued 14 new ones. 14+1 = 15 shares at a dollar = $15 per share. There's your reset.
Too bad they'll be 2 billion shares then.
Speaking of NOBO, that shareholder list on CSHD's website is pure direct marketing gold.
Dang, guess I'm gonna have to step up my bashing if I wanna make Kingmack's list of doom.
If anyone should be handcuffed it's you for threatening Our-street.
Lens,
I think you will admit these articles do not paint the great crisis implied by you in your previous posts. And the last blurb from the law professor is just one guy, and he is making an assumption about what he thinks the SEC is worried about. As I said, the market maker exemption is certainly worthy of debate. The real scandal, in my opinion, is how the clearing firms make a killing on stock lending. As a holder of CSHD, you should be earning some of the 20%+ interest that shorts are paying right now.
As for the merits on CSHD, I think there is more than enough evidence to support my position but it really doesn't matter. We'll find out soon enough.
An FTD is not necessarily a naked short sale. Say you own CSHD. Your broker lends them out to Mr. Shortseller who sells them into the market. No problem, your broker can deliver your shares and has a net flat position. But then, miracle of miracles, you get a clue and realize that CSHD is a total fraud and sell your shares. On settlement, your broker can't deliver because the shares have already been sold. So YOUR sale produces an FTD. Maybe the broker is able to borrow the shares from another broker or maybe another customer of that broker falls prey to Rufus' fantasy and buys CSHD curing the fail. Perhaps Mr. Shortseller will be forced to buy back the stock in a buyin or cover it on his own. Or maybe the fail persists for a while. In any case, the shortseller cannot simply walk away from the debt.
Does naked shorting happen? Yes, but that doesn't make it illegal or even nefarious. Market makers have an exemption which allows them to naked short in the course of their market making activities. Whether this exemption is justified is open to debate. However, one must also consider the benefits to the marketplace of the liquidity provided by market makers. Without naked shorting, there would undoubtedly be more volatility, particularly in small, low-float issues so prevalent on the OTC. While this increased volatility might be a boon to daytraders, it would detrimental to the stock market's primary mission as venue for raising and allocating capital.
You make a big deal about Dateline etc. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, a news organization might get the story wrong? Same goes for Congress. There is a vociferous, well-financed lobbying effort against NSS. Money buys influence. That's America, pal. And this is just the kind of story the media and Congress like: nasty Wall Streeters taking advantage of helpless small companies and individual investors. You think anyone is going to feel any sympathy for a market maker, whether they are in the right or not? The sad truth is, in the end, it's not the market maker that lose. It's all of us. As short selling is further restricted, stock promotion will flourish resulting in the misallocation of capital from legitimate enterprise to snake oil peddlers and the transfer of wealth from the investing public to stock promoters. The SEC has changed the short selling landscape in recent years and proposes to do even more. However, you will note that their primary focus is on dealing with the fails issue (which I have already explained is not some giant conspiracy), not NSS. They have repeatedly recognized that shorting is a legitimate activity and beneficial to the market.
Finally, I clicked on your link and was gratified to see in the #2 position a FAQ from the DTCC. EVERYONE would be well-advised to read it carefully. You will learn a lot about the system works and also about this anti-NSS campaign. Here's the link and a few snippets:
http://www.dtcc.com/Publications/dtcc/mar05/naked_short_selling.html
@dtcc: DTCC and some of its subsidiaries have been sued over naked shorting. What has been the result of those cases?
Thompson: We’ve had 12 cases to date filed against DTCC or one of our subsidiaries over the naked shorting issue. Nine of the cases have been dismissed by the judge without a trial, or withdrawn by the plaintiff. The other three are pending, and we have moved to dismiss all those cases as well. While the lawyers in these cases have presented their theory of how they think the system works, the fact is that their theories are not an accurate reflection of how the capital market system actually works.
@dtcc: One of the allegations made in some of the lawsuits is that the Stock Borrow program counterfeits shares, creating many more shares than actually exist. True?
Thompson: Absolutely false. Under the Stock Borrow program, NSCC only borrows shares from a lending member if the member actually has the shares on deposit in its account at the DTC and voluntarily offers them to NSCC. If the member doesn’t have the shares, it can’t lend them.
Once a loan is made, the lent shares are deducted from the lender’s DTC account and credited to the DTC account of the member to whom the shares are delivered. Only one NSCC member can have the shares credited to its DTC account at any one time.
The assertion that the same shares are lent over and over again with each new recipient acquiring ownership of the same shares is either an intentional misrepresentation of the SEC-approved system, or a profoundly ignorant characterization of this component of the process of clearing and settling transactions.
...
@dtcc: If the volume in the Stock Borrow program is so small, why are these companies suggesting it is a major issue?
Thompson: Frankly, we believe that the allegations are attempting to purposely mislead those who are not familiar with this program. A number of small OTCBB and so-called “pink sheet” companies have contended that this practice is driving down the price of their shares and driving them out of business.
According to their own 10K and 10Q reports financial auditor’s disclosure statements, many of these firms have admitted that “factors raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.” They have had little or no revenue, according to their financial reports, and substantial losses, for periods of seven or eight years. One of these companies has been cited for failing to file financial statements since 2001. Another has been cited by the SEC for press releases that misled investors on expanding business contracts that didn’t exist. They will do anything they can do that takes people’s attention off that kind of record, especially if they can convince a law firm to take the case on a contingency basis, which is what has happened.
@dtcc: Who are the law firms bringing these suits?
Thompson: The main law firms engaged in these lawsuits, and they have been behind virtually all of them, were principally involved with the tobacco class action lawsuit. They like to bring suits in multiple jurisdictions in an attempt to find any jurisdiction where they might be successful in winning large judgments.
@dtcc: What causes a fail to deliver in a trade? Is it all naked short selling?
Thompson: There can be any number of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” many of them the result of investor actions. An investor can get a physical certificate to his broker too late for settlement. An investor might not have signed the certificate, or signed in the wrong place. There may have been human error, in that the wrong stock (or CUSIP) was sold, so the delivery can’t be made. Last year, 1.7 million physical certificates were lost, and sometimes that isn’t discovered until after an investor puts in an order to sell the security. There are literally dozens of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” and most of them are legal. Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally “naked short” shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails. We can’t do anything about them but what we are doing: that is, report all fails of more than 10,000 shares in any issue to the marketplaces and the SEC for their action.
I'm quite sure you will choose to remain clueless. That's your prerogative and you're quite good at it. Perhaps someone else will contrast the quality of our opposing arguments, do some research on their own, and learn something.
Eventually, you can have it removed from your account. It becomes a taxable gain at that point. But some of these stocks trade for years after they cease to exist as operating businesses. It can be a long wait. A couple examples: Iridium, Etoys.
Lens,
Wrong as usual. There is no such thing as "counterfit" (sic) shares. The problem is failures-to-deliver (FTD's). You really need to educate yourself on this and not just spout off a bunch of nonsense because you think you have an idea how the system might work. FTD's can happen for a number of reasons, one of them being naked shorting. However, every sale is accounted for. A market maker can't just flood the market with sales and walk away. No, they are still on the hook for every share they short.
They (MM's and brokers) log them in as sales and they log them back out as buys which on the computer screen, which supposedly adds to the float. That "increase" in supposed float the MM's can then play on to continue to drive the stock south - BETWEEN THEMSELVES, leaving the "retail" investor "holding the bag" and ruining the integrity of the stock market. I first of all don't think that even when the shares are bought back that they are actually bought, per say, but rather just another phony electronic transaction between MM and brokers to make money off the spread.
This is complete nonsense. To prove it, consider the obvious conclusion. If market makers can short a stock like CSHD, receive the cash and then wipe out their short positions owing nothing, why not do this to every stock, all day long, selling an infinite number of shares? Obviously, they can't or they would be doing it. They can't because if they fail to deliver the stock at settlement, they are still liable for it. They may cover later, they may be forced to buy the stock back in a buyin, or they may hold the short position indefinitely, but until they cover, they are on the hook.
And there is no dilution from naked shorting. It's like with futures. Did you know that if you add up every long and every short position, it all nets out to zero? Futures contracts start trading with zero open interest and every buy has a corresponding sell. It's a mathematical certainty. The same logic applies to shorting. All shorting increases the number of shares floating around in circulation, but it does not change the NET number of shares outstanding. Every short sale is offset by a new long position.
As for your comment that you can't believe ADP made a mistake, then why did Alexander himself say in the subpenny interview that they did? He's YOUR guy, remember?
Bottom line, nobody here knows for sure who all the players are and all the mechanics behind NSS but we do that it's destroying the markets, good companies and many retail investors in the process of lining the pockets of MM's, hedge funds and brokers with ill-gotten, ILLEGAL gains.
Well, it's obvious that you don't understand the problem but that doesn't mean that others don't. Further, has it ever occurred to you that the anti-short lobby is distorting the truth and has an obvious motive to do so--to perpetuate their stock promotion activities? You claim that naked shorting shorting is destroying markets? Surely if naked shorting is the massive problem you say it is, let's see the evidence.
1) Where's the evidence that companies are being destroyed?
2) Where's the evidence that these companies are heavily shorted?
3) Where' the evidence that this is the result of naked shorting?
4) Where's the evidence that any of these companies have any substance and why are they using the backdoor reverse merger loophole to go public?
5) Where's the evidence that these companies are not using the stock market equivalent of loan sharks--firms like Cornell--to raise money and that these highly dilutive financings are not responsible for their demise?
You're not going to learn everything if all you do is regurgitate the garbage coming from Rufus and the anti-naked short crowd.
Congrats, this post has raised conspiratorial fantasy to an artform.
Ever time a naked short is done, there is a buyer on the other end of the trade. DTCC keeps track of who owns and who owes the stock. It's like a bank who keeps track of who has a deposit at the bank and who has a loan from the bank. If the DTCC were to wipe out a naked short position, it would also have to wipe out the offsetting long position. If 75 million shares were suddenly wiped out, don't you think some one would notice?
Wouldn't it be something if the merger was cancelled and the foul-mouthed Mike Alexander walked away with all the loot? I guess Rufus wouldn't go away empty-handed. He's famous and made friends all over the country.
Was this before or after the discussion about mining the moon for minerals? I think they would say anything if they thought it would have a positive effect on the stock price. They are well aware that there is a contigent of longs that love the underdog angle: the little country bumpkin from Georgia taking on the corrupt NY stock market establishment and shocking the world. Massive shorts, broker conspiracies and death threats only add to the drama. Couple that with unlimited upside and a pretty compelling story. If only it were true...
Nah, I've listened to some of it but it's just too much. A lot of enterainment value in there, though. I don't think Alexander has bought any shares. You see any form 4's? Alexander made many questionable statements in that interview; this was just one of many.
Saw the Webb article. Pretty sad to see all the apologists attack yet another messenger. Greed and hate will cause some people to believe anything.
Rookie,
You really wanna go there?
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/record/2006/sep06.pdf
Congressional Candidates
Raise $893.6 Million
Through June 30
Congressional campaigns raised
a total of $893.6 million in the
first 18 months of the 2006 cycle,
a 12 percent increase from the
comparable period of the 2003-
2004 campaign. From January
1, 2005 to June 30, 2006, 2,080
Senate and House candidates spent
$515.3 million, 6 percent more
than in 2004, and reported $575.5
million in cash on hand, a 19 percent
increase from 2004.
...
Major Parties Raise $695M
The Democratic and Republican
parties reported raising $695 million
in hard money at the national,
state and local levels during the
first 18 months of the 2006 election
cycle—six percent less than
they raised during the comparable
period in 2004 and eight percent
less than in 2002, the last midterm
election.
I think you're off by about 6 digits.
A letter of credit can be quickly drawn down to produce cash, but it is not cash. However, here's the bigger issue. Rufus didn't just say that he had $500 million cash in Europe. He said they sold the bonds and the proceeds were sitting in a bank account in Europe. Sorry, but there is simply no way that his statement can be interpreted to mean that they have a letter of credit. Rufus lied, period. That's what liars do.
Did you even read what I wrote? Any investor or investor group that has $900 million to invest in a single, speculative venture like CSHD has the resources to do due diligence on that company in far greater depth than even an audit would reveal. Spend a million bucks on lawyers, accountants, and P.I.'s now and save hundreds of millions of dollars. Seems like a pretty good deal to me. But no, like Rufus, they're gonna leave hundreds of millions on the table so little people like you can become overnight millionaires. Uh, yeah, that's it.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, WRONG. The 8k/a is for CVSU and CVSU only, not the combined FHAL and CVSU. Get your facts straight.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/757563/000129707706000068/cshd8ka_09292006.htm
Rufus gave an answer. That doesn't make it a good answer.
A reasonable supposition, for once.
Kinda makes this headline by ole Rufus look false and misleading now doesn't it?
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060920/clw093.html?.v=23
CSHD Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner (NOBO) List Identifies 75,487,085 in Market Shorts
Matter,
I don't know if that's legal, but even if it is, it doesn't pass the smell test. Why would an investor pay $15 next week when they can pay $2 today. That's a difference of hundreds of millions of dollars.
But what about the audit, you say? Well, what's to stop the big investor from hiring their own auditor to review CSHD? Don't you think it's worth a few hundred million to them to do a bit of legwork of their own?
It's all a big fantasy and not even remotely plausible.
Liquid, not that you care but here is the last release from the SEC on the Miles case.
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/lr19612.htm
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Litigation Release No. 19612 / March 16, 2006
SEC v. C. Jones & Company, Carter Allen Jones, Timothy J. Miles, Gaylen P. Johnson, and Jonathan Curshen, Civil Action No. 03-CV-00636-WDM-PAC (U.S.D.C. Colo.)
Court Orders Carter Allen Jones to Pay Disgorgement and a Civil Money Penalty
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on February 3, 2006, the United States District Court for the District of Colorado ordered Carter Allen Jones to pay $68,540 in disgorgement, plus prejudgment interest of $24,670 (nunc pro tunc as of March 31, 2005), and a $110,000 civil penalty for his participation as a promoter in a "pump and dump" scheme involving Freedom Golf Corporation's common stock.
Previously, on January 21, 2004, the Court entered a default judgment of permanent injunction against Jones and his company C. Jones & Company, enjoining them from future violations of Sections 17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Based on the Commission's motion, on March 31, 2005, the court dismissed its claims of disgorgement and penalties against C. Jones & Co.
For more information on earlier actions in this case, see Litigation Release No. 18092 (April 16, 2003).
Please note that SEC obtained a "default judgement" against Jones and his company. From Wikipedia:
Default judgment is a binding judgment in favor of the plaintiff when the defendant has not responded to a summons or has failed to appear before a court.
Why did the SEC resolve the case against Jones but leave Miles and the other defendants alone?
It's obvious that you're much more interested in your agenda than the truth. I hope you own lots and lots of CSHD. Have you ordered your certs yet?
Wait, so we skip the first Saturday but count all the other ones? Think about it.
Just because Rufus said it doesn't make it so. There's a post from HSM that says even Sabra now gets it as of today. Really, this issue has been beaten to a pulp and some of you still don't get it. Sheesh!
Here's a shocker!
No 10K today. CSHD is now delinquent.
No, she's wrong. Rufus said last night that the deadline is Monday and we know that Rufus is never wrong.
RUFUS RECAP on HSM 10/12 (MONDAY 10K DEADLINE)
Today, 07:41 PM #5632
RufusPaulHarris
HSM Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Georgia
Posts: 52
October 15, 2005 late due date. do not pay attention to SOS.
all is great, 300 plus not on the list, total share count is getting high.
long and strong.
__________________
GODSPEED
Rufus Paul Harris
Chief Executive Officer
Conversion Solutions Holdings Corp
[email]Harris@cshd.us[/email]
Better hurry folks.
The comet is leaving in 10 minutes.
Got your purple cloth, errr, CSHD shares?
I bet Tut looks something like this.
http://www.dci.dk/en/mtrl/heaven.html
I hope you longs like purple.
You forgot nuts.
Rufus is creating book value faster than XOM. If that isn't the ultimate tell, I don't know what is.
Oh, I get it. You know about it so that makes it ok. Nice rationalization. By the way, it's been three full months since the merger announcement and a full month since Rufus announced that the merger is officially closed. Interesting that Rufus has been saying Waatle shareholders have been getting their shares. Isn't that jumping the gun just a bit? The SEC doesn't require approval for 8k's but s-4's, well, Rufus can't fake that one.
Wow, this is a scary stock. Witches falling on Monday? To do what, prey on bashers?
Matteroftime, do yourself a favor and get an old-fashioned calendar. Put your finger on June 30, then count 90 days and 15 days after that.
It works like this.
If you trust Rufus, you look like a moron.
http://www.secfile.net/SEC_calendar.htm#EDGAR_Filing_Deadlines_for_Quarterly_and_Annual_Reports
Form 10-Q/10-QSB 45 days after end of quarter end
Form 10-K/10-KSB 90 days after end of fiscal year end
Period Ended---------------- 10-K Filing Deadline
Friday, June 30, 2006--------Thursday, September 28, 2006
A math lesson for you, Masta.
Shorting, naked or otherwise, does not lead to an increase in dilution. It has no effect whatsoever on earnings per share or any other per share metric. For the long, there are two negatives from short selling and they are minor and completely irrelevant to this stock.
1. If you own stock in a heavily shorted issue, there is a chance your dividends might not be deemed qualified and therefore taxed at a higher rate.
2. High short interest can make shareholder voting for directors and other proxy votes problematic.
Dilution is completely a non-issue. If you are short a stock and they issue a dividend--cash or stock--you are liable for that dividend. It doesn't matter whether you shorted it with a borrow or without (naked). The company does not have to pay out more to cash or stock to holders of so-called "air shares".
An example:
A company has 50 million shares outstanding.
Short interest is 10 million shares. There are no 60 million shares in circulation.
The company issues a $1/share dividend. The company pays $50 million. Shorts pay $10 million. Longs, all 60 million of them receive their $1 dividend.
A couple more comments on naked shorting. Sure, naked shorts technically don't have to cover (most of the time). However, that doesn't make the transaction risk-less. They bear unlimited risk if the stock goes up. They have margin requirements so they can't just short all they want. And they are subject to buyins (forced covers). These can come at any time and often at the most inopportune times. Regulation SHO has made the buyin problem all the more accute.
I guess Rufus can't count. 31 days in July, 31 days in August. 90 days after fiscal year-end is September 28. That's the due date. The 15 days extension brings us to October 13. That's tomorrow, not Monday. Sorry, wrong yet again.
Only one day left until the mythical 10k/reset. The due date is tomorrow. So why is the stock trading at ~2.20, down .40 on the day?
We've been through this before. Apparently Mitch didn't get it the first time around. The 10K was due on September 28, 90 days after the end of the fiscal year. The NT gives them an extension of 15 days which is tomorrow. If the 10k is not filed by tomorrow, it is delinquent.
C'mon, Sammy. You cannot deny that employees of major, major companies like Cingular and Northop have been buying this stock. Those are some smart people and they love CSHD!!!! I'm sure they know a lot more about all this than you.
(jk, of course)
Sure, it's still a scam.
There is a logical, reasonable explanation for that and it has been provided to you by someone else. Do you really think that pointing out that list of companies, the significance of which is highly questionable, somehow offsets the massive misrepresentation perpetrated on the public with the NOBO list? Get real.
Stocks should be fairly priced and this stock is fairly valued at zero. Folks like you want something for nothing. Unwittingly or not, you are facilitating a stock scam. So I have no problem whatsoever with you losing your money, particularly after the truth has been revealed to you.
When this is over, most people in this stock will have lost money. They will scream and holler demanding justice. They will blame Rufus, the shorts, the bashers, the SEC...everyone but themselves. Is that what you want? Does it make you feel more of a man?