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.
I got filled at .0004 18 seconds before JEFF moved up.. :)
That's silly- now if you edited one of Zen's posts by replacing every instance of the words, "that", "this", or "the" with the word "such", I could see a resemblance. :)
How to Use Pie Chart
http://thomson.finance.lycos.com/lycos/iwatch/help/htupiec.htm
The I-Watch Total Trade Volume pie charts allow users to determine whether Institutional or Retail investors are driving today's price movement for this stock.
After a broker/dealer executes a trade, it often reports the trade to Thomson's proprietary communications network. The Total Trade Volume Chart segments each trade as either Institutional or Retail, based on the broker reporting the trade.
Institutional - a trade reported by a major brokerage firm which typically trades on behalf of major mutual funds/portfolio managers. While these firms also have retail branches, the amount of trades reported on behalf of institutional investors dwarfs the limited amount of retail trades that are reported.
Additionally, Institutional brokers often maintain internal house trading accounts as "market makers." When these firms report their trades it is impossible to determine whether the trades were executed on behalf of an institutional client or for the firm's own house trading accounts. While trading patterns for institutional clients and house accounts tend to differ, the fact that "Big Money" is behind the trades means that these investors/traders have the ability to move markets.
Retail - a trade reported by a broker that primarily executes on behalf of retail investors, such as Charles Schwab's Mayer Schweitzer.
Non I-Watch - this portion of the chart refers to trades not reported over Thomson's proprietary communications network. Broker participation is voluntary, so it is rare that all trading volume is accounted for. These trades can be related to either institutional or retail trading.
------------------
It's been posted here repeatedly that the stats on institutional buying are wrong in the case of CMKX, because any "large" trade is automatically considered institutional, and CMKX trades in large blocks even at retail. However, Thomson is saying that they are tallying volume through brokerage houses that do mostly institutional business - AND, NOTICE, that they seem to be saying that volume BETWEEN MARKET MAKERS would be categorized as institutional volume. So, it seems according to Thomson, that 51% of CMKX volume for the past 30 days has been institutional or MARKET MAKER.
So if I counterfeited the CUSIP numbers in the first place, why don't I just counterfeit some more and credit them to myself, balancing out my books? A counterfeit share is a counterfeit share, I would think.
This just loses me. When everything is counterfeit, 2+2 does not equal 4. None of the math seems to matter. If I counterfeited 100 billion shares to naked short sell, who says all of a sudden I have to pony up the cash to BUY 100 billion shares if I want to balance my books? Why would I? If I'm already cooking the books, well then by golly, let's cook 'em.
(EDIT:hypothetical questions to illustrate a point- no, I have not counterfeited any CMKX stock :))
"I'm tryin to think, but nuttin happens!" -Curly
So for every legit share that Urban feeds back, he gets paid, the MMs short position is reduced by 1 share, and one share somewhere in someone's account at their broker becomes legit.
But if the "Perfect Storm" theories are correct, and the number of naked short shares far exceeds the number of legit issued shares, then when Urban has fed all of the real shares back to the MM's they will still have a substantial net short position. And no more shares to be had. Unless I sell them mine... which I could be convinced to do, for a price :)
So, if Urbans holds, lets say, 37 billion real shares, and he feeds them all back to the MMs, then their short position is reduced by 37 billion and there are now 37 billion legit shares in individual investors' accounts. If they raise the bid high enough, and all of those investors decide to cash in, the MMs could buy back all of those 37 billion shares from the float, and reduce their short positions by a further 37 billion. They have now covered 74 billion short shares with the same 37 billion legit shares, by essentially paying for them twice. And if the short position was 400 billion, they still have a net short of 326 billion shares, and every single share has been credited back to inventory at the DTC already...
At some point, if the naked short really does exceed the I/S, the market makers MUST be buying naked short shares to balance their books.
I don't really understand how that math works out. Maybe I'm really just starting to understand what's going on here... If I was a market maker with a large naked short position, and the real shares were drying up fast, how much would I be willing to pay for those last 10 billion legitimate certificated shares? If they were the last real shares, how much would they be worth?
Where do the shares come from?
Gump, sir, I see your point about the unwritten, back-channel way of communicating intent within the industry without really making an official (i.e. traceable on the record) statement. Here in the States we like to call that "plausible deniability." Gets used a lot...
You bring up another point though... Where are the actual shares coming from if the shorts are covering? If Urban is feeding them real certificated shares to allow them to cover, then isn't he losing his advantage with every share he sells back?
Or, if the theories are correct that Urban has all or most of the real shares, and a large portion of the float consists of counterfeit naked short shares how do the numbers work? Suppose some MM had a naked short position of 10 billion shares, and that MM buys back 10 billion shares out of the float... all of which are also naked short counterfeit shares, without certificates... Does that cancel out the short position in the MM's books, even though a real share never changed hands either going out or coming back in?
It's like chasing ghosts...
"I didn't do it." -Bart Simpson
Right, that's what I mean...
I don 't think E&A can be a party to "making an agreement with the mm's to allow them to cover at a certain price.."
It would have to be completely passive, maybe like saying with a wink, "Look, there are actions we can take that will force you to cover, whether you like it or not, and you will no longer be able to control the price. What we're telling you is, we will not take those actions for 30 days. Until then, we *suggest* that you cover as best you can, at whatever prices you can arrange, because at the end of the 30 days we WILL take action and you will no longer be in control. The market will set the price."
Allowing the shorts to cover...
One thing has always bothered me about these scenarios:
If Urban and Roger have a meeting with the short market makers in a smoke-filled back room somewhere, and cut a deal that allows the market makers to buy back their naked shorts at a designated price, and that price is controlled for an agreed period of time (apparently by JEFF..), then haven't they just committed a blatant price-fixing securities fraud? Even if it is done to correct what we see as a wrong situation, isn't it still price fixing? With Edwards&Angell right up to their eyeballs in the mud?
A lot of these theories, and jon's summary is a particularly clear good one, make sense to me and really seem to fit with what's going on, except for that one element- that somehow Urban has agreed to let them cover at a fixed price. I can't see how he could legally pull that off...
.0005 fill- I thought this was interesting. After i hung up the phone w/ Ameritrade, my buy order filled at .0005 (19 minutes to fill). And they had just finished telling me that my order was at NITE, and NITE was asking .0006 at the time, so I guess NITE filled the order below their ask price.
Best ask...
This is my understanding, someone correct me if I'm wrong :)
When you place a buy order with your broker, they are SUPPOSED to shop that order around to get you the best possible price in the current market. That's one of their duties to you as your broker. But I gather that they don't always do that... They may just shop around to a few, or maybe even one, market maker and just grab a price and fill it. Has to do with the quality of service they try to provide.
For example, I had a buy in this morning with Ameritrade, limit at .0005. JEFF was selling at .0005, everyone else was at .0006. My order wasn't filling, so I called and asked them to send the order to JEFF. They said they can't, they send all CMKX orders to NITE...
So I'm pretty sure that if I put in a buy now with a limit of .0006, they would send it right to NITE who is currently asking .0006, and it would fill at .0006, even though best ask is now .0005..
Ameritrade fills
Just called Ameritrade to try to get them to send my order to JEFF- trading desk told me my order was sitting at NITE, and they couldn't send it to JEFF. Said they don't use JEFF. Then Nite filled my buy at .0005- took 19 mins.
OT: uh oh... see what happens :)
darkraven, just kidding of course
Please don't get darkraven started!
"...I hope Melvin wasn't abducted by aliens and taken to a dimond rich planet.......
Hmmm... now look at the .0005s... is this another case of the MM buying that huge block at .0004 to immediately resell to fill a large buy order at .0005? Can any one confirm which of those trades were MM buys and which were MM sells?
Look at the volume at .0004 since 14:49... someone is methodically selling off a huge position in 9m blocks every few seconds so volume doesn't spike too high... What's this all about?
Ahh, thanks...
Can some one PLEASE post a level 2 quote? Thanks!
Does anyone here have level 2?
Level 2 quote please, anyone?
l2 please sub Thanks!
LOL.
On the contrary: I'm very careful indeed about what I say.
There is no such investigation
I'm not going to dive into the mud with you (any more than I already have... :) )
BUT-
To me you have no credibility whatsoever, and your statements should be viewed with exactly the same suspicion as any posts by anyone else with an obvious axe to grind.
I suggest to all CMKX investors-
Do your own research, take everything here with a grain of salt including Janice's posts, and best of luck with your investments.