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.
Ah, thanks...
FINRA short sales for SRSR
20130131|SRSR|740271|0|2836135|O
26.1% of today's volume was short sales
Go SRSR!!!
"gold production is targeted to commence in mid-2013"
Taken from:
"Timberline holds a 50-percent carried interest ownership stake in the Butte Highlands Joint Venture in Montana where gold production is targeted to commence in mid-2013."
Seems it might be worth waiting around for that to happen.
I don't have much of a feel for what else we should be expecting to see happening in Nevada, this spring, or when we'll hear about it.
They have a PDAC link on the webpage under upcoming events... and that's not until March.
"They have obviously been losing money for more than a year. You don't create a $96 million in a year! "
Exactly.
And, in the year plus that I've been watching it... they've tacked on at least $20 million of that total apparently without having done anything useful to try to "fix" anything... other than tinkering with force applied through draconian financial maneuvers and other stupidity.
"They don't have a plan to succeed"...
That means the plan they do have is to not succeed ?
If that's what they want... and that's what you give them... and no one appears to have any issues with anyone wanting that ?
Then, the issue is only that too few people want that, now, and, then, that's not useful to discuss... unless the question is how do you get more people to want that.
I think you don't get more people to want that... by trying to force them into it. And, if you try, you'll get the opposite... including things like an F rating from the Better Business Bureau... and the permanent animosity and word of mouth of a whole lot of pissed off people... who were forced into "relationships" they didn't want.
I'm not claiming I have the answer for "how it should be done"...
But, the audience I'm listening to here appear to know what works and what doesn't... while the management and the banks don't.
And, "the customer is always right" ?
Ever hear that ?
I'm actually far more interested in the FINRA data showing us how much of todays market activity was short COVERING ?
Can you point us to the transparency that is provided by FINRA showing how short positions that are taken... are unwound ?
LOL!!!
From an investors perspective... assuming there is always someone out there trying to scam you and others out of your money, one way or another... with the presence of more "sophisticated" bankers being only more of a risk ?
I have a short "checklist" I apply, condensed from years of experience, that covers most of the risks you'll encounter in as few steps as possible.
It's worth considering in other context... given you invest time, and your life, as well as money, with the choices you make.
1. Can you trust management.
2. Is the value solidly attached to a share.
3. Is the value both real, and realizable for shareholders.
If you fail at any step... you exit the checklist and move on to investigating a new opportunity. Life is too short to waste the good parts on dealing with people you can't trust, while betting on successes occurring where its unlikely, because people that could succeed if they tried are more interested and intent on profiting from generating failure and imposing it on others.
Of course, that checklist for investors purposes here is pretty easy now, given the answers are no, no and no.
As you study the checklist, over time, you can get more nuanced in the consideration. In truth, the answer to the first question is always yes... you can trust management... it's just a question of needing to parse carefully what it is that you can trust them to do. If you state the question more completely, you might get a different answer. "Can you trust management to act as proper fiduciaries while putting others interests that they are committed to protecting, ahead of their own" is a different question than "can you trust management to act in their own self interest, no matter who gets hurt." The answer to one of those questions will be closer to "yes" than the other... and which of the "yes" answers is more correct is what matters.
I think the same analysis applies in considering who you work for.
You'll be happier working for people you can trust, who intend to fulfill the obligations they've made to you. If that's not a proper description of the situation you find yourself in, you'll still end up being happier if you're being more realistic about the situation than not, while not allowing yourself to be scammed.
Value ?
Debt always imposes limits in how solid the connection of value to shares can be... so, where there is debt... the "can you trust management" question becomes "can you trust the lenders", as we see in the risks being realized, here, with the lenders hobbling the management of the company to benefit themselves at everyone elses expense. (Not that I see any evidence at all that management would do better without the "help".)
Beyond investing... what are the "values" in play that enabled this business to EVER exist... who creates and delivers the value... how are those values recognized and realized by participants in the transactions... and what are the "values" really worth... to those willing to pay for them ?
I think the audience we have here now, knows way more about what I'm talking about in that... than the management and bankers...
Is the value real ? That's a question we're all asking in relation to the changing technology here.
But, as in the exercise above... a closer look at the question reveals more depth... than considering only one source of value... which suggests that there might be more than one way of addressing a situation to enable value(s) that exist in being realized.
There is the physical value of the products being sold... which is being undermined by steady advances in technology, and competition offering better products, and alternative products, for less money.
But, there obviously are other values in the business too, which matter to the participants, including the customers...
Ubiquity in "things" means "value" is less about metering out and pricing the scarcity in those things... and more about the value of service to others in delivering them better, faster, cheaper ?
Customers being pressured into an hour long sitting... and efforts to "upsell" them... doesn't rank highly on customers want list.
Reality is... the industry has made itself more of a pain in the ass than a "want" for most people.
Considering finding what people DO like... and offering them more of it, while doing a better job than others in delivering it... and while eliminating what they don't want from the process... isn't exactly a business school secret. However, it is still a concept that generally does elude most people in business, and particularly in finance... and pretty much anyone who thinks "force" is the best way to sell anything, or create cooperation.
Debt of $96 million is a deep hole.
The company isn't worth that.
Clearly, a company that isn't working, as a function of impositions that force it to bleed out of cash... is worth less than one that is not giving things away and hemorrhaging cash that way, more with the pairing of give-aways and the blood being lost to vampires sucking up the rest.
The maneuvers this month... reveal something of the potential of the business... even with the banks sitting on its chest.
The question is... why have they been sitting on the companys chest for over a year now... and only now decide to force some visibility in relation to "value" generating capacity... while preventing that value being made obvious, from being realized rather than given away ?
It's been clear enough for a LONG time... that this company is in trouble.
I find it fascinating that they've basically not even TRIED fixing anything... right up until they were forced to make changes by the banks cutting off their access to borrowing.
They've pissed away a year, in which time they could have fixed it... while doing nothing.
The management are responsible... but, the banks now control the management... so... ???
That's why I came here, initially, seeing a troubled company and expecting an fairly "easy fix"... and was forced to change my opinion based on the analysis of the performance...
There is not a process occurring here that I can see that appears capable of enabling success...
I'm discussing the reasons for that, and the motives... as there is always someone behind the effort that is making failure happen, because they benefit from it, somehow, even if perversely in the short term, in ways that don't enable any success... and even if the only benefit left, at some point, is that in minimizing the pain of failure.
I don't trust the financiers... as an entering argument.
This is a business that should not be failing...
That the company's own management are not competent to fix it... doesn't mean the idiots in the banks and the restructuring shills they hire to do their bidding... are more competent.
I see a lot of stupidity, and going through the motions, and not much evidence of any leadership that has a clue.
There is no way to make it work without cost, including the cost inherent in imposing change.
That doesn't mean any change, at any cost, is therefore a "fix".
Here, they clearly don't have a plan...
If they had a plan that could work to "fix" it... they'd communicate that plan... rally the troops, and press ahead.
What we see happening here instead... is the business equivalent of trench warfare...
The fact they owe $70 million + to the banks... means there isn't too much of a question what would happen in any BK filing now anyway.
Some of that is true because the corruption that has been worked on our entire system, has not overlooked the courts... so that the "protection" of bankruptcy... which used to be a set of laws intended to protect borrowers from (more sophisticated) lenders to enable borrowers to succeed in their businesses, in spite of the creditors depredations... is now turned on its head to protect predatory lenders from their borrowers.
But, the fact that the debt has expanded, while the banks imposed new policies preventing the business from succeeding ?
That suggests shareholders would at least have a viable reason to consider suing them... given how flagrantly stupid the decisions under their control have been, and how clearly unrelated the decisions made are to "improving the business, and making the business succeed" rather than making sure that it fails flagrantly enough, and irreversibly, in a way that maximizes the benefit of that failure for the banks...
Contracts matter.
But, more than the contracts themselves, the intent to fulfill them.
It doesn't matter what your contracts say if the performance they require is not possible.
Management here made a decision, a long time ago... back around the time I showed up... to do everything they could to protect the banks interest, including agreeing to allow the banks to take control of the "restructuring" process.
So, what "could happen" if management had made different choices isn't useful to consider... given they didn't make those choices.
And, what "could happen" if management made different choices now, still isn't useful to consider, when management appear to have either no interest in changing, or no capacity to change the course they've previously opted to follow...
I obviously don't have a problem with a management that intends to honor their commitments to their lenders...
But, you and I both know that the market reality is vastly more complex than that overly simplistic view of the nature of the commitments that have been made. The best way to honor ones commitments to the lenders... is to make the business work so that honoring them is possible. And, what we see happening instead... is that the "management" have been doing something other than that... while cooperating with the banks in enabling a "take down" of this business. That focus might have been already determined... even way back in the day when the company was profitable, and throwing cash at its shareholders... and not re-investing in the business ?
Where'd you get those numbers ?
"Revett Minerals reports FY12 net cash from operations $18.7M vs. $28.2M in FY11"
Looks to me like they're totally bogus. The net cash from the 2011 Annual Report was $21,769 and the 2012 report won't even be out for another quarter, plus... not until the end of March.
Their cash position looks OK... more cash on hand, looks better this year than last... if not better in cash from operations comparing 9 month to 9 month... which you'd expect with metals prices lower in 2012 vs. 2011.
They'd not shut down the mine until mid December, so there's no chance of seeing any impact from that in any numbers you can see at this point.
I did note a subsequent event reported:
" 13. Subsequent event
On October 15, 2012, the Cabinet Resource Group, a regional environmental organization, voluntarily dismissed its pending lawsuit against DEQ, the Company and Troy Mine, Inc. in Montana state court, with prejudice. The lawsuit, which was filed in 2007, alleged that Troy was being operated in violation of Montana law due to deficiencies in its reclamation plan, and that the defendants had violated the Montana constitution and various state statutes and regulations by allowing such operations to continue. The Company had continually maintained the complaint was without merit."
" the management simply files a BK and restructures the company"
They could have done that way back BEFORE they surrendered to the banks by agreeing to follow their restructuring plan. Now... way too late for that. Can't get there from here. That ship sailed more than a year ago.
I think no one is going to "buy the company"...
They may buy "some of the assets of the company"... without buying the debt, which will allow the banks to apply the price they get for the assets held at sale against what they're owed by the company... and still continue a banking relationship with the new owners of any surviving components that are carved out.
For employees, that may or may not work out depending on who buys how much of what, where, etc. Whatever doesn't get bought... gets closed.
For shareholders, that's a plan that virtually guarantees losing everything... A bankruptcy filed a few years ago would have been better, as court protection of the company from the mismanagement and the lenders might have saved the business. But, the banks didn't want to save the company... intact.
It does leave questions about who the buyers are, and the nature of the relationship between any buyers, and those who are conducting or forcing the conduct of the sale...
Are these "arms length" transactions... or does one of the VP's at one of CPIC banks have a second cousin who is buying the assets really cheap... using a loan he got from his uncle at the same bank... after the bank forced the company deeper in debt, while preventing them from succeeding... by giving away free stuff instead of advertising, etc.?
The banks will try to force it into a corner where it looks like there are not any options left for saving any of it... then cut off the cash... and they probably will succeed in killing it.
the new owners will know all they have to do is not be stupid and give away free stuff... and they'll do better than CPIC.
It's shareholders... who are being screwed... by the giveaways.
The banks are just trying to drive the deal price down... to ensure the sale can't cover their debt... which leaves the company unable to escape, and they WANT that, to ensure they can stick the fork in it in a way that prevents it coming back, so that there won't be a reason to ask questions.
What they're doing... is trying to screw shareholders out of everything there is... all of it...
And, unless shareholders sue them for it, they'll succeed.
Other questions... about the nature of the banks interest. Were the banks big shareholders a few years back, when the former CEO spun out all that cash ? Did they then sell their shares, at or near the top of the market, and then go short the shares, making even more money from the forced failure... basicaly getting paid for their holding 3 times... while still leaving them still owning the debt, and owning the company (or its assets) even after their losses on the loans are balanced against trading profits taken out over time ? None of those questions get asked without a proper bankruptcy... rather then the "show up at the morgue and have the coroner issue the death certificate" style BK they have planned.
Why would management go along with it... instead of fighting for the company and its shareholders ? Well, did they make a lot of money during the good times... and might they want to borrow money from the same banks again, in their next gig ?
Yeah. Entertainment value would still be good...
I agree on the "if"...
But, I'm not as positive on the "if" being likely inside the time frame I'm considering.
My opinion is... the CNOOC talk is politeness, only.
As far as this year... it's early... and we're already locked into an entire nother year without anything even possibly happening. The best that can be said about that, this time, is that they got that news out earlier than they have before. So, now, with the lease extension under their belts, I want to see them (FECOF, not FEP) actually doing something...
We can keep monitoring the political situation... and we will... but, realistically, from here, that's probably going to take some real time to get to the point where any real progress can occur. Not happenin' this year... probably not next...
Will they commit to buying a single powerball ticket every month, until the next one hits ? Something ?
It's gonna be long ride. I'm just hoping the inflight movie isn't going to be "Groundhog Day"... AGAIN.
Just depends on which way you were hoping to see it move ?
The options appear to be "sideways" or "sideways"... although with two different definitions.
Hopefully, given they NOW KNOW there isn't anything at all that will be happening here to remotely justify paying anyone... ?
I think management are collecting salaries for reading the IHub posts, and calling that good...
Maybe they'll FINALLY decide to try to turn FECOF into a real business, that has something really going on, and something for management to do, other than sitting around and watching the paint dry ?
Or, maybe they'll just think about it for two years ?
I'd suggest considering making it a gold / silver royalty holding company... anything that will possibly make money flow IN instead of OUT, within a reasonable holding period, while generating some potential yield and an upside that isn't totally dependent on the same old, same old ?
Will not hold my breath...
It was a slow moving fork... but it got stuck in.
Ouch! Stop. That hurts.
Laughing too hard.
LOL!!!!
"Flowers bloom the best in the sunshine and light, don't you agree?"
How can I disagree with that ?
But, there is a difference...
Flowers also love it if you let them wallow in composted poop ?
Businesses not so much.
"It will be interesting to see after the bankruptcy if they try to ask for advice from the current board that runs the company."
If they're smart, they'll ask people with experience in making failed businesses work, instead of those with experience in making successful businesses fail.
Not my first rodeo.
And, its always the same.... every time you watch a company like this dealing badly, as it must, with its final death throes. I've enjoyed (not quite the right word...) reading the employees posts... and I've read every one of them. Do that, a couple of times, watching as companies destroy themselves, and you learn a lot about business, and a lot about people... including the routine in the evil of petty bureaucrats using the very little power they have to ruin others lives as best they can. Where you see that allowed to exist at the top, there's never much of a question about how far and how badly the corruption has worked in corroding the "integrity" of the organization. And, the people will suffer it... some even if it kills them.
I think life is meant to be better than that... even when things aren't working as well as they might. But, organizations develop a culture... and they often can't make the decisions required to fix it, when its broken, as that is who and what they are. I found it not surprising to see the company firing many of the good ones, and keeping trash... as that's what got them here... is the inability of their systems to discriminate properly, and make the right choices... in people as in other things. The former CEO at the top of that list, clearly.
FWIW, I've often enough seen similar situations in which the employees never made a peep... which I find sad. I think its more useful to see the venting discussions that reveal the nature and extent of the problems, in some detail, before its ended. Of course, if there were open communication like that all along... the problem never would have existed... and those creating it wouldn't have been able to survive the truth... or, the awareness would have doomed them a lot sooner... perhaps enabling change sooner, too. But, even when the employees never show up to vent, you know there is always something exactly like the conversation we saw here happening... going on somewhere.
In other cases, instead of the employees self pity and blame party, I've seen the investors vent instead. We've not seen that this time... but, as with the employees, I know that conversation is happening in investors homes all around the country. Inevitably, there is someone's grandmother, somewhere, who's just lost her entire life's savings, because her husband left her with everything riding on CPIC, and now she'll lose her home, and will have nothing left to live on but her Social Security... which won't be enough to begin to provide decent care as she ages. And, there are families that will be being broken up because one of the couple lost many years worth of their combined savings by investing here, and not paying proper attention.
There'll also be management and bankers who become unemployed and unemployable... because of the big $ lost in a failure on their watch. Some will be destroyed by it... others will allow it to eat at them, while pretending to not care, and they will become people that you really don't ever want to be very close to.
There are always many lessons to be learned... that are being learned the hard way... when there is a failure such as this.
It's depressing to watch these things happen...
But, I judge the lessons, though painful, are worth learning. So, I appreciate you guys sharing your pain with me...
It's still not worth being angry about. That anger is usually just a method of trying to avoid your own responsibility (or, lack of it) that allowed you to be blinded to the situation... and end up putting yourself in that situation that HAD to end that way... instead of making other choices when you could. I'm not suggesting you beat yourselves up, either, for making those choices... but, shit happens, you learn from it, expect and hope to grow stronger, not make the same mistakes twice, and be purposeful in not letting it make you bitter and angry... instead of wiser. Do try to do what you can... to not let that shit happen to you... or be done to you... again ?
Failure is how you learn what not to do.
So, try again... and go learn what else not to do.
I think there are a hundred ways they could have saved this... if different decisions had been made. I'm sure I see paths by which it could still be made to work... which I expect "they" would not ever consider or do, whatever "they" do with the parts of this left after what comes next... because... "they" are the problem.
But, you have to be honest enough to recognize it ... that there are also self interested people out there... who aren't even in the least bit concerned about trying to "do the right thing" for others ?
You'll live a longer happier life if you learn to avoid them... whether marrying them, hiring them, working with or for them, or drinking beers with them. And, you can make that choice... to change your choices.
Here, you're getting the change anyway... so, you might as well make the most of it as you try to land on your feet ?
Good luck to you all.
Do they short only pink sheet stocks in Europe ?
Seems Europeans KNOW that the faux "transparency" being provided by the SEC and FINRA's flagrant eyewash... is fraudulent... and they're expecting U.S. regulators will "push back" and lobby to sustain the lack of transparency in reporting that enables the institutional practice of fraud against investors on trades completed in the U.S. ?
Go figure.
Strange that the FACT in the lack of transparency, here, is labelled "a conspiracy theory"... while in Europe, instead, they're just going ahead and making it harder to practice short selling frauds against their investors... by making it ACTUALLY transparent.
And... guess what... the world doesn't end or stop spinning when you stop the fraud by requiring transparency...
=================================================================
Short-Sellers of Europe Set to Be Unmasked
Published: Friday, 2 Nov 2012 | 7:23 AM ET Text Size
By: Kelly Evans
CNBC Reporter
Short-sellers around the globe will be unmasked starting on Friday as new European rules come into effect.
The European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), the EU regulator, has issued new rules on the short-selling of securities indicating that anyone with short positions of greater than 0.2 percent in an EU company’s shares must report it to regulators.
Positions of more than 0.5 percent will be publicly released, naming both the company and the short-seller. Public disclosure is triggered any time that level is hit with each 0.1 percent increase or decrease after that.
Teams of lawyers were working into the night to help banks, hedge funds and other investors comply with the rules with the deadline due at 3:30 p.m. local time in each jurisdiction.
And disclosures need to be filed separately to each national regulator which has introduced plenty of headaches, given that in some countries, like Hungary, the paperwork is largely written in the local language.
Sources from the finance industry have indicated to CNBC that the disclosure rules will hurt overall market activity in Europe, potentially driving investors to other markets like Hong Kong
Others have told CNBC that a version of the rule already in place in Spain and Portugal hasn’t had a major impact.
Still, it is a major step towards unmasking the short positions of hedge funds which are typically one of their most closely guarded secrets.
And any pushback from the U.S. will yet again pit European regulators against their American counterparts.
==============================================================
Elizabeth C. Economy, C.V. Starr Senior Fellow and Director for Asia Studies, Council on Foreign Relations
Delivering on the domestic front will no doubt occupy much—if not most—of Chinese president-elect Xi Jinping's first year in office. Cleaning up corruption, addressing the growing wealth gap, and rebalancing the Chinese economy are just a few of the daunting items Xi must tackle.
Yet Xi will also be forced to keep foreign policy front and center. In contrast to his predecessor Hu Jintao, who came to power at a time when China was celebrating a trifecta of triumphs—accession to the World Trade Organization, a successful bid for the 2008 Olympics, and first time host for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation forum—Xi's transition moment is marked by a far more uncertain and challenging foreign policy environment.
Xi's most pressing challenge is dialing down the anti-China sentiment boiling over in Beijing's backyard. He has already taken a few steps toward this end, channeling the ever-conciliatory Premier Wen Jiabao by stressing China's desire for a "win-win relationship" and calling for China to be an engine of growth for the region. Despite having contentious political relations with its neighbors, China is moving forward with talks on a regional free trade agreement with South Korea and Japan.
But it is too early to declare a return to a kindler, gentler China. Xi has also called for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and declared that Beijing is "firm in safeguarding China's sovereignty, security and territorial integrity." With Xi at the helm of the Party's South China Sea small group since 2011, Chinese policy in the region has been increasingly assertive.
Xi also needs to rein in and integrate all the disparate domestic actors that undermine a coherent and well-executed foreign policy. China's state-owned enterprises, cyber-hackers, and intellectual property thieves are front-line actors in the country's foreign policy, often shaping China's behavior and image in disconcerting ways. And the Public Security Bureau and local governments are reportedly responsible for some of China's most provocative moves in the South China Sea.
The biggest question facing Xi, however, is what type of power he would like China to become. On issues related to foreign trade and investment or intervention in crisis states, will he seek to align China with accepted norms or move to reform current practices? And in cases in which norms are still developing, such as cybersecurity, how interested will he be in engaging or even assuming a leadership role in developing shared standards? The world wants a real reason to believe Xi's commitment to "peaceful development" and a "win-win" foreign policy. As Xi himself has said, "Making empty talk is harmful to the nation, while doing practical jobs can help it thrive."
http://www.cfr.org/china/changes-challenges-china-2013/p29704
SRSR is right about two years ahead of the typical time line for a mineral property acquisition to development sequence.
Of course, that's true only when considering them in context of those properties that ARE moving toward production that soon after being acquired...
The property itself... has been known to be there since the 1950's... and that's pretty typical, too, that when the pace of demand growth in the market doesn't require new sources of minerals badly enough to justify the costs of development, a known deposit can languish for a long time.
But, historically, the pace in niobium demand growth hasn't ever been anywhere even remotely close to what it is now... growing at a double digit pace into the foreseeable future... even if the global economy remains flat.
It certainly doesn't hurt... anyone but the shorts... that SRSR owns a world class niobium deposit... easily one of the top 3 to 5 on the planet... at a point in time when demand for niobium is expanding exponentially, and those dependent for their "sole source" of supply on the existing suppliers... are facing significant new risks.
Also doesn't hurt that the 'feasibility factors' apparent at Nemegosenda already, solidly beat the pants off of other deposits out there, including a number of those that are already in production...
How's your due diligence into the various exceptions and exemptions to the FINRA rules... and what they mean... going ?
When should we expect your report back on how the exceptions and exemptions in the rules mean that the FINRA reported numbers actually INTEND to allow shorts... that are not being reported... while ALSO deliberately understating those that are reported ?
Of course, that issue with the exemptions still doesn't appear to apply to the problem with the FINRA schemes failures in under-reporting of the short participation... as on Thursday ?
So, what "loophole" do you think they're relying on to justify those under-reporting errors... ?
"who's investing based on short claims?? "
I am.
I've investigated every single one of the shorts claims, and have determined that every single one was bogus.
No one believes any of the bogus numbers put out by FINRA.
FINRA are frauds... who work for frauds.
I could just as easily claim short sales of houses are zero... by cherry picking the data I report, while exempting and excluding the reporting of the short sold houses there are in the market...
There is ZERO credibility in FINRA.
They've written rules that EXCLUDE REPORTING the shorts that do exist... in order to posture the FRAUD that there are no shorts.
Which bit of material information that we are discussing are you wrongly accusing the company of failing to disclose ?
Once again, that is incorrect... FINRA daily numbers ARE a reflection of short interest... but, they're not much more than a "reflection" of real short interest. Those FINRA numbers are something MORE than a "reflection" of shorts active participation in the market on a daily basis... as they are purported to be an ALL INCLUSIVE full summary of ALL REPORTED short participation, each day, that includes BOTH any actual short positions being taken in the trade, AND any shorts that are supposedly simple market making activity providing market liquidity inside the period of the market cycle (they hope) with shorts that are exempt from other reporting. It is a simple matter to sort out which are which.
It is worth noting still, both, that reporting to FINRA is wholly VOLUNTARY, and that there are a number of EXEMPTIONS that apply to reporting in any case... so that it is FACT that not all short positions that exist are reported... either in the FINRA numbers, or in the Reg SHO reports.
Also worth noting that, UNLIKE long side trades, NONE of the short positions taken are reported as shorts UNTIL THEY ARE SETTLED... and, given the exemptions in the rules that have existed, and those that still exist, there are a number of ways that settlement can be postponed... indefinitely... without creating failures to deliver... and without reporting short positions that have been taken.
FINRA provides information on their website proving that is true.
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/RegulatoryFilings/ShortInterestReporting/index.htm
Investors should be careful to rely on trustworthy sources for information, while being aware that just because something is posted on the internet by someone posing as an authority, that doesn't make the preposterous things that they claim... true.
Once again, that is incorrect... FINRA daily numbers ARE a reflection of short interest... but, they're not much more than a "reflection" of real short interest. Those FINRA numbers are something MORE than a "reflection" of shorts active participation in the market on a daily basis... as they are purported to be an ALL INCLUSIVE full summary of ALL REPORTED short participation, each day, that includes BOTH any actual short positions being taken in the trade, AND any shorts that are supposedly simple market making activity providing market liquidity inside the period of the market cycle (they hope) with shorts that are exempt from other reporting. It is a simple matter to sort out which are which.
It is worth noting still, both, that reporting to FINRA is wholly VOLUNTARY, and that there are a number of EXEMPTIONS that apply to reporting in any case... so that it is FACT that not all short positions that exist are reported... either in the FINRA numbers, or in the Reg SHO reports.
Also worth noting that, UNLIKE long side trades, NONE of the short positions taken are reported as shorts UNTIL THEY ARE SETTLED... and, given the exemptions in the rules that have existed, and those that still exist, there are a number of ways that settlement can be postponed... indefinitely... without creating failures to deliver... and without reporting short positions that have been taken.
FINRA provides information on their website proving that is true.
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/RegulatoryFilings/ShortInterestReporting/index.htm
Investors should be careful to rely on trustworthy sources for information, while being aware that just because something is posted on the internet by someone posing as an authority, that doesn't make the preposterous things that they claim... true.
That's obviously wrong.
ONE reason an entity might naked short sell a stock... is that they incorrectly believe the stock may go to zero... thus negating delivery requirements.
But, that being A possible reason... obviously doesn't make it the ONLY POSSIBLE reason.
The rules we have for reporting shorts now mean that the shorts that are reported... are the ones someone WANTS TO HAVE reported.
Those that want to short without reporting... either take advantage of various exemptions that enable avoiding reporting them... or else they just cheat and don't bother... when doing that is both cheaper and easier (even if they do get caught).
The situation is roughly analogous to freeway speed limits... where there are one set of rules for cars (retail investors... with access and the rules set by the broker your account is with) and another for trucks (institutional investors)... only, in this case, the limit posted for cars means what it says, while the limit posted for trucks... is covered over with so many notices of exemptions, limits, footnotes, etc., that its not visible... which doesn't really matter anyway, given the cops are actually paid by and work for the truckers... the truckers union writes the rules... and the cops all hope to get really well paid jobs working for the truckers union after they've done four or five years in the job.
And, even with that... its still not like anyone ever has much of a reason to take the 55 mile an hour speed limit seriously, until they have the misfortune of being the one sacrificial fish in the school that gets picked off by a hungry penguin trying to fill a quota... but, with the SEC as state cops, and FINRA as the locals... and the truckers union writing the rules and the exceptions and footnotes to them... reality is that the truckers still got ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN to worry about.
"Stating SRSR is short X% of shares is false"
Where have you seen ANYONE ELSE stating they DO know for a fact what the short interest IS for a fact. The ONLY posts I've seen that do make that flagrant error here... are yours...
Most here appear reconciled with the FACT that the purposeful lack of market transparency that is imposed to protect the short trade... intended to enable that trade (as through carve outs in exceptions and exemptions, limits and caveats in the rules, relationships in the interactions between exemptions in different rules, and terms of art in footnotes enabling specific interpretations in that context, etc., that enable the rules in avoiding what WOULD OTHERWISE, but thus doesn't in fact, actually require reporting)... is generally effective.
"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/lets-kill-all-lawyers
And, justification in a biting commentary on the lawyers obvious and expected effort to try to reformulate that common quote to convince people that it means the exact opposite of what it actually does: http://www.spectacle.org/797/finkel.html
The intended beneficiaries of those exemptions from reporting are not RETAIL investors or traders... (who tend not to be overly well represented in the typical effort to "reform" the construction of rules governing Wall Street... to make them sound different and perhaps more effective, while changing them not at all. My opinion is that VERY few are still being fooled by the effort, at this point... with only the bankers themselves left agreeing the effort is effective in fooling anyone.)
No one knows what the short position here (or, anywhere) is for a fact... because that is what the rules we do have now STILL intend, enable, and require...
Not all existing shorts are required to be reported.
The rules that exist now haven't ever and still don't force the revelation of legacy shorts... if those positions have been "grandfathered" or if they have otherwise been re-structured to enable the application of other, new, or still existing exemptions to reporting... before some prior exemptions expired.
That's the fact.
It is sophistry to discuss what the rules are postured to and purport to intend... while failing to address the exemptions that reveal what they do intend in fact... instead.
However, knowing what those exemptions ARE... and knowing the trading history in an issue includes a number of VERY obvious elements that reveal the efforts in positioning and re-positioning... concordant with the rules changes... that clearly DOES enable their application... that, coincidentally occurs in precise correlation with the time lines on which rules changes are being implemented ?
LOL!!!
If this is a mystery... it's not exactly Shakespearean, or a well crafted and well acted Sherlock Holmes stumper that keeps you guessing and entertained right up to the final reveal... rather than one of those very badly written made for TV "puzzlers" that anyone with half a brain has completely figured out half way through the first half of the show...
Just sayin... the "conflict" being developed here isn't Shakespearean in terms of the quality or entertainment value of the resulting theater... and is common with Shakespeare only in the typical baseness of the subject and the characters.
Or, on the one hand... information.
And on the other hand, misinformation.
One, inerringly correct... albeit with known and obvious limits in utility... which is highlighted by and sort of the point in posting it.
The other, rife with error, and advocacy for error.
Seems to me there's a common term for describing that... I just can't quite put my middle finger on it right now...
There's a lot in there that's wrong... including the effort in changing the subject from the FINRA numbers (which exclude failures) to discussing failures... and from discussing numbers that specifically relate to SRSR... to discussing statistics that apply to the entire market.
But, the funniest part of that is in how everyone (in the industry who profits from fostering the effort in public misrepresentation) wants to focus on that 98% settlement rate, and not on the 2% failure rate...
We're talking a 2% failure rate... in banks managing your money and transactions correctly... as if that's a GOOD thing...
LOL!@!X!F!ers
As if 2% of my flaming pay check goes missing, due to THEIR "uncertainty" in concluding some portion of a contribution or a deduction... and I'm supposed to be flaming thankful that the flaming banks were THAT good... that it wasn't more ?
LOL!!!
That's TOTALLY pathetic... and wildly disingenuous.
ZERO TOLERANCE for errors... is the only acceptable standard.
Seriously.
If they can't avoid "losing track" of or can't determine how to conclude "only" 2% of ALL the trades occurring each day... something is VERY seriously wrong... and they should all have their licenses revoked.
Of course, there's a reason that they do tolerate that ridiculous failure rate... and tout it as "remarkably good"... when it is nothing of the sort.
I agree that RETAIL participation in the trade... is not the issue... and it never has been. It is a CANARD to posture that the issue with shorting is, or ever has been, about retail interest.
Once again, that is incorrect... FINRA daily numbers ARE a reflection of short interest... but, they're not much more than a "reflection" of real short interest. Those FINRA numbers are something MORE than a "reflection" of shorts active participation in the market on a daily basis... as they are purported to be an ALL INCLUSIVE full summary of ALL REPORTED short participation, each day, that includes BOTH any actual short positions being taken in the trade, AND any shorts that are supposedly simple market making activity providing market liquidity inside the period of the market cycle (they hope) with shorts that are exempt from other reporting. It is a simple matter to sort out which are which.
It is worth noting still, both, that reporting to FINRA is wholly VOLUNTARY, and that there are a number of EXEMPTIONS that apply to reporting in any case... so that it is FACT that not all short positions that exist are reported... either in the FINRA numbers, or in the Reg SHO reports.
Also worth noting that, UNLIKE long side trades, NONE of the short positions taken are reported as shorts UNTIL THEY ARE SETTLED... and, given the exemptions in the rules that have existed, and those that still exist, there are a number of ways that settlement can be postponed... indefinitely... without creating failures to deliver... and without reporting short positions that have been taken.
FINRA provides information on their website proving that is true.
http://www.finra.org/Industry/Compliance/RegulatoryFilings/ShortInterestReporting/index.htm
Investors should be careful to rely on trustworthy sources for information, while being aware that just because something is posted on the internet by someone posing as an authority, that doesn't make the preposterous things that they claim... true.
I called my broker. He tells me he's allowed to short anything he wants to.
Perhaps it should be a more direct source of concern for CDE holders ? The former CDE management who were responsible for CDE disposing of the former CDE assets that are now the core assets of USGIF... seen being listed now as the officers of the company that owns those assets now ?
I thought it was rather odd at the time CDE disposed of them.... and that they appeared to have zero interest in pursuing any effort in exploration that might show "more" high grade material than that they were mining at the time CDE shut it down. There's a lot more to the history in that period, of course, with the massive cost of the effort in rehabilitating the mine sites and all... but, perhaps it's not a coincidence that Parker got let go only when USSIF started succeeding in proving up something of the nature of the value still left in that ground ?
And, of course, now, my expectation that there would be more found if only someone bothered with looking... have been proven correct... even though they've still only scratched at the surface a bit harder than before... given there are still kilometer after kilometer along the trend on USGIF property that have never had a drill sunk in them ?
I've been clear all along that I think the Silver Valley assets and their potential, while silver prices are well over $10... are top notch.
But, that's a separate issue from the schemes that the former CDE management were operating, back then, to take those assets away from the CDE holders, particularly if that plan was intended to benefit CDE management instead of CDE holders. Those same or similar tactics seem they are being duplicated now at USGIF... which doesn't appear to be a reason for USGIF holders to gloat ?
Back in the day, Wheeler looked at the Couer and all he saw an asset he wanted to dispose of. So, why should I find it useful to see his name associated with that asset again, now ?
FWIW, I also don't have any particular quibbles with CDE's asset quality (other than thinking it is somewhere between short sighted and massively foolish to have sunk the amount of investors money they have in places like Argentina, Nicaragua and Boliva)... but, I note in looking at a longer term chart that, in spite of the apparent asset quality, CDE management's long term performance has meant a MASSIVE loss... of 90% of the value in shareholders equity... and THAT's what matters in management's performance.
Management's might be happy enough when they're allowed to succeed, at investors expense, in building empires...
Investors should not be foolish enough to think they should be similarly happy, and tolerate losing their money, just to enable that sort of self aggrandizement.
When you see the management's oversight resulting in doing stupid stuff like losing control of their core asset properties by failing to keep their leases current... ?
Maybe USGIF holders need to be riding herd on things a bit more closely... to make sure there aren't any similar problems with "forgetfulness" happening here ?
The DD checklist is simple enough:
1. Can you trust management ?
2. Is the value solidly attached to the shares ?
3. Are the assets real, and the value realizable ?
A big part of the first question has to include... who's interest is it that the management are working to advance ?
Sadly, at USGIF post-Parker, my answer to the first question is... I don't trust these guys at all. And, their performance, post Parker, appears only to be evidence validating my opinion.