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.
not sure where I picked this up or to whom it is attributable - but interesting re "cellar boxing." I apologize to the author for losing his/her name.
Interestingly enough, no one has ever known the author's name. Guess he didn't want to take credit for it, given that it doesn't make any sense, and that he just made up the term "cellar boxing".
lol, and of what, exactly, am I "suspected"?
You don't seem to be able to answer Jim's question.
Self-interest? I don't have a dog in this fight. But I do intensely dislike stock scams.
Scarcely, rruff. You need to take a long look in the mirror. You're crude and you're nasty. You make scarcely any substantive posts. And you don't know anything about CMKX.
You just come here now and then and try to take over the board. When people disagree with you, you lose it.
"He's batting 1000" is a colloquialism, rruff. It's intended as hyperbole.
Who's "upset"? I was addressing the subject of your incessant personal attacks.
Guess you still haven't read my post. Bet you haven't read DeCosta's screed either.
Batting average - perfection would be 1.000.
Funny, I've never heard anyone say: "He's batting one".
Oh yes. They reconstitute 'em in hot water and then puree them to use in chili and stews and the like. Or you can just grind them to powder and not bother with the reconstituting.
Oh wait!! I'm sorry!! i misunderstood!! You're referring to Bobo as a "bottom crawling personal attacker"!!
Tell me, rrruff, is "ad hominem" your new favorite phrase? It certainly should be, given that you resort to it when you're unable to rebut an argument.
And Bobo should realize that everyone knows what it means.
Has anyone here ever defended class action ambulance chasers?
Oh, I'm forgetting: you wouldn't know, because you only hit this board occasionally. Obviously you also don't know much about the content of TSX's posts. Even the longs acknowledge that he's been very helpful.
Yes, as long as it's pretty dry where you live. You can dry 'em in a dehydrator, of course, and some people do it in a very low oven.
Two lines? Did this post somehow escape your attention?
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=9894956
I wonder why rrruff finds himself unwilling or unable to reply to the post he himself asked me to write.
BTW, did you even read it, or did you just see all those jargon-rich phrases, glaze over, and mutter to yourself - "...man, this dude really knows what he's talking about!"?
I suspect you've got it. Rrrruffy does have some standards. NO ONE who actually reads the thing could possibly think it's "brilliant".
lol, I take your point. But at least I can form comprehensible phrases, sentences, and paragraphs.
Did you read my post? No comment other than that?
That's been extensively discussed here; do a search on the board.
Nice work!
But the key question remains: why does Megas still support Sytner?
And why is Megas copying Mario's sleazy IR firm on his emails?
lol, peppers freeze quite well.
What is this .. a Whackjobs' convention ??
Yep. Whackjobs are attracted to each other. If you doubt that, you need only pay a visit to the RB CMKX board.
I hope they nail Carol Remond's underwear to the wall.
Why? What have you got against Carol? What Bad Things do you imagine she's done? Or is this just a knee-jerk reaction to anyone who laughs at the Get Shorty bunch?
Maybe you should read that article again: obviously the SEC is embarrassed, and is backing off. We won't hear anything more about those subpoenae. That's unfortunate, because I suspect there's an interesting story there.
They have a lot of different kinds.
snicker, no they don't... Here's more information on Peter:
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/yeager62.html
it is not merely a matter of NSS, but whether CMKX has been naked shorted So far I haven't seen evidence that CMKX has been NSS'd.
Neither have I. And as you point out, the company itself has never claimed that it has been.
USCA still hasn't brought their filings up to date and I think for the same reason: They also engaged in shoddy/faulty/gross violations with the money and now don't want to account for it. Any filing by USCA would also shed light on CMKX dealings and CMKX still can't afford to have that made public, not as long as they are still avoiding making it public themselves.
Yep. I entirely agree.
The work is brilliant...
Following on my own take on it, please explain in detail what about it you consider to be "brilliant", if you can actually slog through the whole thing.
Authors can always get help...
Not this one. He's way beyond help. No editor would take it on. And obviously everything he writes is way too long.
The site also has some very useful and detailed information about how to grow them and take care of them.
Basically peppers like a lot of sun and heat. While I've had problems with other kinds of herbs and vegetables, my peppers have always been successful.
Oh yeah, and get one banana type pepper. They're very tasty, whether you choose the mild kind or the hotter kind.
You could get a mix. A couple of mild ones, a couple of medium, and a few "hot". I think as long as you avoid "very hot", you probably won't have to endure too much pain.
I find that tabascos are excellent producers. So are habaneros, though they don't start maturing until fairly late in the season. I see that they have some milder "habanero types", so you might want to try one of them. Habs actually have a pleasantly fruity flavor.
And of course you'll want a Peter Pepper.
Okay, you guys want my take? Here it is:
I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to NASD Rule 3360 in order to expand the short interest reporting requirements to all OTC securities. In a nutshell, I highly recommend this proposal and its implementation as soon as possible.
What's to comment on? It was clear at the time De Costa wrote this that the proposal would be accepted.
I have been fortunate enough to devote the last 24 and one half years of my life to a very thorough study of the phenomenon known as naked short selling. During that timeframe I have written 2 unpublished textbooks on the subject, the most recent being an approximately 800-page analysis of naked short selling and the role of unethical DTCC participating market makers and clearing firms and their interrelationships with primarily unregulated hedge funds.
Why should Jonathan Katz care about this? As previously noted, these screeds remain unpublished. Obviously one reason is that they're way too long.
Although the “Forced” federally-mandated buy-ins for certain threshold securities are clearly outlined, somebody at the SEC unfortunately inserted the verbiage, “If the participant does not take action to close out the open fail to deliver position AS MANDATED BY THIS NEW FEDERAL LAW, the participant is prohibited from making further short sales in that security without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the security”. Unfortunately, no clarification of what constitutes a legitimate reason for being unable to execute a mandated buy-in was included except that the reason cannot be of a financial nature.
Huh? What's he talking about? This makes no sense whatsoever to me. Where are the words "legitimate reason" in the quote from Reg SHO?
My question to you at the SEC is, “Which is it” Are these DTCC participants “FORCED” to do these “Mandated” buy-ins as outlined in the text of the law or not My second question would be can the DTCC’s actions be interpreted as recommending to its participants the breaking of the new Federal Law Reg SHO because the punishment, irresponsibly advertised by somebody at the SEC as being nonexistent, really is nonexistent People can and do break Federal Laws all the time. My third question is why advertise the loopholes accessible for breaking these new Federal Laws with no recourse within the text of these new Federal Laws unless, of course, somebody at the SEC’s heart wasn’t quite in the right place all along but wanted the SEC to be PERCEIVED anyways as acting as a shareholder advocate that is following its mission statement of providing “Investor protection and market integrity” I think that you at the SEC can now get a pretty good idea of why the shareholder advocacy groups are critiquing the effectiveness of the new Reg SHO “Threshold Lists”.
A beauty of a run-on sentence. Also making a mountain out of a mole hill. I believe this "loophole", as the Dentist calls it, was intended to give MMs a little leeway. Though they don't have to cure their fails immediately, they DO have to cure them if they want to continue making a market in the stock in question. And so they will cure them. What's meant by "participant" in this case is "DTCC participant". Ordinary shortsellers--professional or amateur--are not DTCC participants. (By the way, publicly traded companies ARE DTCC participants, a point that many people out there miss.)
One fact that “pre-doomed” the bulk of Reg SHO’s honorable intentions is the rule on the books of the DTC and the NSCC that states that mandated buy-ins need not be executed if their effect might be “Disruptive” to the markets. In layman’s terms this means that mandated buy-ins in the shares of an issuer that fell victim to a “Bear raid” that resulted in its share price falling from 5 to 2-cents need not be done because these buy-ins might result in a “Market Disruption” involving the share price skyrocketing to 4-cents, an enormous 100 gain.
What makes De Costa think that? He's just making it up. My own take is that the kind of "market disruption they have in mind is the kind that would have been caused if, for example, the (maybe) inadvertant short position in GVRP/MAMG had been forced to cover in the open market. Oh yeah, I'd have liked to see that for my own sake, but you can bet it would have been quite catastrophically "disruptive".
Unethical market makers will bend or break any rule to attract the business of these hedge funds. They have to in order to survive. The money from primarily unregulated hedge funds drives this entire naked short selling “Industry within an industry”.
Really? Can he show any proof of this?
In-house proprietary trading activity has skyrocketed recently among market making firms.
Again: got proof? I'll once again bring up a point many choose to ignore: If, say, NITE is making gazillions by shorting naked for hedge funds and shorting naked in its proprietary accounts, why isn't that isn't reflected in their financials?
Our OTC markets are trying to “Evolve” and eliminate human intermediaries market makers subject to human greed and in possession of a vastly superior “KAV” factor Knowledge of, Access to and Visibility of the clearing and settlement system run by the DTCC and replace them with unbiased computers ECNs to match up buyers and sellers.
That isn't even a sentence.
A bona fide market maker injects liquidity by buying shares when sell orders outnumber buy orders with the same zeal that he shows while selling shares when buy orders outnumber sell orders. The problem is that buying shares consumes money while selling shares, even if you don’t own nor intend to ever purchase shares, makes money because of how the DTCC is “Wired”.
Actually I believe MMs can go "naked long" as well as "naked short".
To create “Pricing efficiency” all negative votes short sales as well as positive votes buy orders need to be tallied as long as the short sales were preceded by a legitimate “borrow” i.e. not a “Borrow” from a “Self-replenishing” source like the DTCC’s “Automated Stock Borrow Program” or “SBP”.
What? This is gibberish. btw, the Stock Borrow Program can't be used for stocks trading under a dollar.
Bona fide market makers don’t get caught in this trap as they are more than willing to increase the price level of their offers if the buy-side pressure remains. This is referred to as “Averaging up”.
It is? Huh? Look, it's an MMs job to take the "wrong" side of the market. If market sympathy favors the stock in question, the MM has to sell. If the maket dislikes the stock, the MM has to buy. Um, that's how it works.
The supporting bids of unethical MMs taking part in “Predatory trading strategies” are conspicuously absent as share prices fall despite their having the money from investors buying at higher levels in their coffers.
Once again, HUH?
The “Continuous Net Settlement” system CNS in use at the DTCC “Nets out” on a daily basis buy and sell orders which is extremely efficient BUT has a “Masking” effect on delivery failures which is an unwanted side-effect UNLESS YOU WANT TO HIDE THE EXISTENCE OF A PLETHORA OF UNDADDRESSED DELIVERY FAILURES.
How does that work? If the fails roll over, or get cured, fine.
At the DTCC, it is extremely easy for fraudsters to illegally sell nonexistent shares and actually get their hands on the proceeds without ever covering.
"At the DTCC"??? DTCC doesn't trade stock.
For the most part, naked short sellers don’t ever cover they don’t have to.
Untrue, for reasons that have been explained here many times.
If they meet resistance then there are available “Internet bashers” to employ and financial “Journalists” for hire to produce “Hatchet jobs” to propagate any negative stories whether of merit or not.
Also untrue.
I just can't go on... I'll summarize the rest by saying he doesn't seem to understand how the Stock Borrow Program works, and doesn't seem to have understood Leslie Boni's article, either.
Having finally read this tendentious BS, I can easily understand why those two "textbooks" haven't been published. The guy's writing is beyond "poor"; at times it's entirely incomprehensible. If you can't communicate effectively, you probably don't know what you're talking about. Poor writers generally have poor comprehension skills.
lol, and why on earth was he explaining to the SEC what the role of market makers is? I'll bet you anything nobody at the Commission gets past the first two paras of this mess.
Now you've got the analysis you wanted, guys. Okay?
Jim the important thing is the message tha was sent to these clowns/writers. I bet we see no more hatch jobs from them and if they do the SEC will come a knocking.
On the contrary, it appears to be the SEC that got the message. I'll bet there's a story behind the issuance of those subpoenae that we'll never hear.
Note how some things have changed since Chris Cox took over at the SEC. Hardly any trading suspensions since his arrival. I haven't tried counting the litigation releases, but there seem to be fewer of them as well.
I guess that's what happens when the head of the SEC is "pro-business" and has filled the upper echelons of the Commission with his own people.
Here are some chili plants for you to try, Phil:
http://www.chileplants.com/aboutus.asp?section=all
Fantastic selection!
I apologize for that. I was looking at feedback alone which is probably not accurate at all.
I should think it is. EBay nags you if you don't submit feedback.
not to dispute that its authentic,I am SURE it is.
Oh, it is. Unlike you, I have very reliable sources.
LOLOL!!
I noticed there was a cc bcit@blueskyir.com anyone get this before.
That's Mario's little IR company.
Once again, rruffy: it's not an article. Surely you know better than to call it one.
Curie was the first woman to get a Ph.D in the sciences from the Sorbonne. She was also the first woman they appointed to a professorship. Sure, she and Louis struggled as students, and before they hit the bigtime. That's normal. When they'd completed their groundbreaking research, they became the darlings of the industrialists. Later Marie won a Nobel prize.
Nothing in that story reminds me of the Consulting Dentist. For whom does he consult, by the way? I've asked that many times, and I've never had an answer.
lol, that sounds pretty Biblical...
hmmmm...I don't see any reference to IDWD there...
So what's the "very good" factual information you have? You certainly haven't shared it with us.
What?? PYCT IS PayChest. It's just a ticker. What the hell are you talking about?
Remember that email I posted? Mario controls PYCT, through Trojan Trust.