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.
You've probably all seen this already, but just in case.
http://spongetech.getfugu.com/
Just in case anyone hasn't read the full text yet...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20634250/Sponge-Tech-Complaint
pj
Yes, it's a cash account. I just got off the phone with TD asking for further info on the rejection. Talked with a guy named Todd who told me that it was their ends (TD's) complaince department that deemed the asset "to risky" to accept...so I guess Scottrade wasn't the problem. I tried to get him to define "risky" for me, but he referring to the complaince dept...so I'm trying to get them now.
pj
to be honest, I was a little ticked at the time.
I think I will though, I'll let you know what they say.
pj
I realize that, so why couldn't they just do it?
pj
SDBob, I also tried to transfer (from Scottrade) for the same reason last week...was told the same. It left me with the impression that ST didn't really have the actual shares to transfer....just my opinion though...but if were the case, I think things could get interesting soon.
pj
No_BS, I'm afraid I'll owe you part of that bill myself, since I've learned a lot of valuable info from your reponses to H.H. I'm in the back of the class, but my attendance is perfect.
OT, you're a gem, "It's a cookbook!!"
At this point, the MM's are trying stop a freight train by laying some pennys on the track.
What's the punchline? I know there's a punchline in their somewhere.
backtrax, just wanted to thank you for your info the other day.
Much appreciated.
Heck of a start today!
pj
Someone, (I'm sorry I can't remember who, but would wish to thank them), sent me info on rule 10b-21 regarding MM's and short selling.
I've copied a section I found interesting, and my question is this. Does anyone think that option #3 has been used to the extent that the new Reg Sho threshold triggers are signalling a breakdown of the MM's system of covering each others fails within the time frame needed to keep them off the list, or is this more easily explainable?
I leave it to those who know much more than I. Just looking for an answer.
pj
Entire text here
http://www.sec.gov/comments/s7-08-08/s70808-231.pdf
BrokerDealers
are many times fully aware of the potential failures by their preferred clients. These firms take such risk because of the revenues generated by such clientele. Consider that, to date, violations in the short sale process have been treated as simple compliance violations netting trivial fines of $10K, $20,K or even $30K. When calculating risk, the BD will calculate the potential lost revenues vs. the potential sanctions if caught and will trade make that illegal trade 99 out of 100 times.
BrokerDealers
additionally collude with other member firms once such a trade is executed and that fail is in the marketplace. Proof lies with the response to the failed trade itself.
In a failed trade the liability of the fail rests with the BrokerDealer
and not the client. In fact the buy side and sell side broker dealer must put up capital to cover the potential of the failed trade. In an illegal trade the BD can act in several different ways.
1.
If the error was based on the client’s misrepresentations the BD can buy in the trade on behalf of the client to settle the trade. The client would then be billed for any costs associated with such a transaction. The client misrepresented the parameters of the trade. In taking this approach the BD is without liability and the client pays for their misrepresentations.
2.
The BD can buy in the trade from the house account and lend out the share for settlement. This allows the client to maintain their short, and pay the lending fee to the BD leaving the BD long the stock. This likewise would eliminate any liability on the books of the firm and would insure safe and prompt delivery to the buy side BD representing the long shareholder.
3.
The BD can take no steps leaving the illegal trade to remain on the books of the firm.
Option 3 is typically what takes place. Both the buy side and sell side BD agree to hold this open as a fail, and set aside net capital to cover the fail, because it is financially beneficial to do so. Both owe each other shares and both have shares owed to them and thus participating parties excuse the cost liability of a buyin.
The fact that the receiving firm has failed to act in the best interest of their client is evidence of the collusion between firms since, as a standalone
transaction, the failed trade is neither in their best
interest or that of their client.
Thanks, I thought it sounded familiar. That's Doug Furth's/Alfies group isn't it?
Signature Management LLC; so far, this is the only info I can find on them.
http://www.secinfo.com/d12TC3.z1uw.htm
No problem; I'm no pro, but there are many here who I have gotten valuable info from, so I pass it on what I can.
GLTY
pj
Good read; I found this part of particular interest-
pj
History has instead shown that the announcement of the investigation by the SEC into the complaintent simply aides in the manipulation of the stock price and that rarely does such investigation yield anything of significance. Such is a wellknown
and understood practice of the short seller. Typically, only a portion of what was being touted by the short seller was in fact accurate. Much of what is identified by a Commission audit are minor issues typical of any audit. Yet the negativity placed upon the issue continues and is used to manipulate the markets perceptions. An example of the relationship between a short seller, Regulation SHO fails, and the SEC is provided in the backup data provided in the Appendix to this memo.
FunMoney, this is a link to some go info on the subject directly from the SEC.
pj
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm
Z4, thanks for the heads up....I'll try to walk the fine line.
REG SHO List DD....
Has the squeeze begun?
http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/keyregshoissues.htm
cheezburgers, thank you. Had been away and was going to reply to Randy, but you said it better than I ever could. My sentiments exactly.
pj
Wow, hard confirmation- guess there's no disputing that. My text was missing the confirmation part though.
z4, I have had similar gains. It seems to me that the more I trust the management, the better off I am. GLTY
pj
I'm not concerened with the AS increase, I see that as a loan to themselves to fund their rapid growth. The OS is what determines the stocks value, am I wrong?
Are they promoting their stock, or are they promoting a viable company, with actual revenues, huge growth and a phenominal marketing strategy?
That sounds like pure conjecture to me, but if we're going to deal in theorys, I have my own. I think the TA is gagged in order to reduce the OS share structure without tipping their hat to those who continue to short this stock, leaving them in ruins when all is revealed.
stox, truly insightful as always. I should have mentioned you as one of my technical guiding lights.
I'm not a technical analysis guy, but thank God we have plenty of those to rely on (thank you Claytrader and others). I like to concentrate on future earnings potential. Let's take one product from the new Dicon acquisition, the "Drys" moisture wicking property of the shoe inserts. Knowing that they can control the foam density, what's stopping them from developing special odor resistent padding to be licensed to makers of motorcycle, football, hockey helmet makers? Shoulder pads? How about kevlar helmet liners and webgear for military use. What about a pillow infused with relaxing scents that never fade. Remember MM telling us how many SKU's were in the pipe? IMHO, I see a budding forest behind these first few trees.
pj
I'm very happy with my position. I anticipate being much happier soon.
Hello to everyone, I'm a new poster here, but I have been watching/observing since April. I would like to make one comment. Mr. Wayne Celia, holder of most or all of the patents related to hydrophillic sponge technology seems to me to be our new head of R&D, along with any current or future revenue generating applications tucked away in that fertile mind of his.
long and strong
pj