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.
This is not the time and place to discuss this.
Dont know why, only telling the truth.
[iThey can't get all their people on the same page. Simply calling an online brokerage and talking to whoever answers the phone is unlikely to elicit correct or sensible answers.
Agreed, but this letter was from a senior compliance officer and he really should know or not be in the job.
Neither did I.
We all know the brokers never got delivery.
So why then do they say that they have shares and can cover.
Why did one broker write in to an investor in mid Sept 2005 saying there was no short and that the trades were covered.
Those statement are fraudulent.
Go and have a look at Section 10b Securities Exchange Act 1934. There is nothing moot there.
Glad to see you are better informed than Bloomberg.
What do they know?
Mind you you do have a point about the resources and the companies that obtain them.
Yes but the exchanges are fiercely regulated and there is a consistency.
Bloomberg state "The Canadian system is working, the American system is not"
For the first time ever the average Canadian is richer than the average American and it is by about 50K USD.
No naked shorting there.
Could not have put it better.
BCIT is in total compliance with the regulations.
It is a shame that we cannot say the same about the regulators and the brokers.
Why should the SEC make a fuss about the private selling of BCIT stock?
We dont need luck, but thanks for the good wishes.
This is not an argument we would use, it is the simple explanation of what else has gone on. Allegedly
Market Value is defined as the current quoted price at which investors buy or sell a share of common stock or a bond at a given time.
These two invested quoted 3 cents so that is the market value like it or not.
In the late 60s customer securities could not be located and it is quite clear that the same thing has happened again here and with other stocks.
As many of you know process was started in Frankfurt and Berlin just before Christmas.
I am unable to discuss this further. Sorry
Not to me, I'm afraid.
Ok two questions which you have avoided like the plague in the past.
1. If the brokers have the shares and cover as they say they can, why dont they just deliver them to the punters? It is not as if it would cost them anything and after all your mate JB keeps telling every one they are worthless.
2 Where are the shares to cover the book entries?
Oxford Dictionary WORTHLESS = having no real value
You will note that there is nothing in that definition that makes ant reference to naive, bamboozle or gullible.
There has been a response to the PR.
A couple of people had missed all the fun some are dead and most have no idea where there certs are.
By the time everything is collated I reckon the court action will be filed in the next week to ten days. Have to speak to the calendar clerk.
3 cents is not worthless.
Who said anything about BCIT going onto a Canadian exchange?
Worthless is the wrong word
Definition of worthless is having no real value or use
One poster has already stated publicly he paid 3 cents per share.
Now then, whether some people here agree with his trading strategy or not, is a clear indication that the stock has a value of at least 3cents.
I purchased Bancorp shares and paid 3 cents per share.
Then that shows that there is a value of BCIT shares.
FINRA members are not obliged to seek out certificates
Well as usual of course you know better than FINRA and the SEC.
Yes, but this is history repeating itself.
The SEC introduced laws to prevent this happening again but they have failed, not because the laws do not work, but because the SEC do not enforce them.
In fact it is worse than that, the SEC positively works to cover up criminal wrong doing in the US markets.
It would not happen in Canada or most other places for that matter.
Do you seriously believe ANY brokerages pledged naked shorts in BCIT as collateral for anything at all?
During the period 1968 to 1971 it was not uncommon for broker-dealers to use customer securities and funds for their own business purposes.
The increased volume and inability or unwillingness of broker-dealers to keep prpper records of transactions resulted in significant record keeping problems.
There was a huge volume of "questioned trades" (uncompared trades), a breakdown in record keeping over the custody of securities their location in addition to significant and recurring accounting out-of-balance conditions and a large volume of fail contracts.
When failed firms were liquidated it was discovered that customers fully paid securities were pledged as collateral for bank loans and were liquidated by the lending banks to pay off the loans, customer free credit balances had been used to finance the broker-dealers' business, and customer securities could not be located.
You have to remember that was 40 odd years ago, but it does rather sound like that history is repeating itself.
public announcement or publication that securities have been deemed worthless
When a business is declared bankrupt, it undergoes reorganization and either ends for good or creates or becomes part of a new stock.
Such a reorganization will usually result in some leftover, worthless stock. Often the business will trade in both the bankrupt and new stock for a certain amount of time, until a cutoff date cancels the old stock, removing it from any type of trading at all.
Thats when such an announcement is made.
In the case of BCIT the company is still alive and kicking and clearly not bankrupt and no such announcement will be made.
Letter of Indemnity For Worthless Securities FINRA 11530(b)
Securities held in "street name" have, by definition, to be registered in the name of the "record holder" and correspond to the shares registered on the books of the corporation.
BCIT management diluted their shareholders by over 99.5%.
In 2005 Megas and Sytner were the biggest shareholders as Janice and others have pointed out till they were blues in the face.
So, by your reckoning they diluted themselves.
As usual, you fail to mention the fact that the people who thought they had bought BCIT shares in good faith from their brokers, were buying what did not exist, those shares and not been issued by BCIT.
In simple terms, you cannot complaint to Ford about your car being no good if it wasnt made by Ford.
The shares people bought in 2005 from their brokers did not exist until January 2006 and that's a FACT
Stick to the truth.
1. BCIT did not issue the shares that the brokers sold in 2005.
2. The SEC enquiries etc exonerated the company from any part in the actions of Pino and Thompson that led to the sale of the shares refereed to in point 1.
3. The brokers sold shares that simply did not exist and all your bluff will not change that fact.
3. The SEC failed to assist investors or the company when the wrong doing was uncovered.
4. The issuance of shares in 2006 was overseen by SEC, DTCC etc and sanctioned by a court of law.
Your question should be How can you trust and outfit like the SEC that takes action to make it almost impossible for the investing public to be able to trade their shares and thus recoup the money that was taken from them by the brokers.
In 2005, did brokers also have an option to allow such naked shorts to be pledged as collateral for bank loans or finance the broker-dealers' business?
NO, that practice had been made illegal in 1970 with the Securities Investor Protection Act.
It was following this act that the SEC established the customer protection rule (Rule 15c3-3) in 1972 and the uniform net capital rule (Rule 15c3-1) in 1975.
you can't trust outfits like BCIT to accurately represent to you the number of shares they've issued.
WRONG
The SEC went through the BCIT Shareholders register and share transfer Journal back in 2005 and found them to be correct.
It was by using these accurate TA records that the Commission were able permitted the issuance of shares under the Oklahoma court order and to bring their proceedings against Pino & Thompson.
In 2005 options market makers had an exemption permitting them to sell naked.
Could you show us that please.
The short that never needs to be covered is our Holy Grail
All well and good until the day when they DO have to be covered.
That day is coming and it could be sooner than you think
They wouldn't be able to name an actionable cause
I am so pleased that you are so far behind and just dont get it.
Information following the Press Release.
Following the Press Release yesterday the lawyer has contacted me to say that he has had a high volume of calls from beneficial owners asking questions which did not need to be directed to him.
As beneficial owners & holders of x205 certificates need take no action at this time & as the attorneys time costs money we ask that you do not contact him.
If you have any questions please direct them to us at es@carltonhuxley.com or share-exchange@bcit-inc.com
Great Minds
No I shall leave it, even JB will have understood by now that they are busted
pros are not obliged to comply with federal securities law
Great minds think alike
The difference between amateurs and pros...
Janice we are much obliged to you for highlighting that the amateurs are honest and responsible and the pros are not.
Thanks I knew the scam buster in you would shine through one day.
They are called *brokers* for a reason
we like that it really made us laugh.
Quick Point To Ponder
Almost all the shareholders who we can contact or are alive have surrendered their certs.
There are less than a handful who haven't and they are all market professionals.
The ones who exchanged their 106s did so because they ahd been compromised by Pino & Thompson in 2005.
Why would market professionals who are obliged to comply with federal securities law and who are supposed to look after the interests of their investors not do like wise?
Just asking