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.
Oh I have shorting is both a pyramid and ponzi depending on how it is operated. No collateral is require from the short seller.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
HUH??? Yes there is more stock in the market. A short sells something they do not own, which unlike the commodities market where you have to use your own collateral to short. That means somebody (third party) bought it and has a new 100 share long position. That is now 200 further a short borrows that 100 and sells it to someone else (fourth party) and now there is another 100 out in the market now my 100 has grown to 300. and on and on.
That is a pyramid.
Market makers cover their short position by borrowing against the long position of the claering house.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Stop Using Other People’s Property As Collateral for Selling Short
by Gary Swancey and David Weed
First I would like to say, I applaud anyone who stands up for this Nation and its people. Not many men have the courage to speak out about the true evil and wrong that directly affects the people of this country. Calling for the SEC to temporarily halt short selling gets my vote. However, I would like to voice a few concerns even though a temporary halt of short selling will make the market a market of the people, by the people and for the people for at least a little while.
This composition concerns and focuses on Short Selling, the art of borrowing (legally stealing) people's hard-earned property for profit and gain to pre-sell the rightful owners property, thus manipulate a downward market and decline the value of the rightful owner's property.
The basis for this composition is simple; I bought a security and delivered the certificate to a broker. The broker instantly loaned out my property that I bought and paid for with my own money, to a larger brokerage house. Something went wrong and when I called for my certificate I discovered that my broker could not deliver back to me a certificate for the property. After almost a year of trying to get my certificate, I received a "certificate of deposit" because there were no certificates available to be issued by the transfer agent. That meant the short position at the larger brokerage house needed my certificate of ownership as collateral to protect the short position. Thus my property (shares) could only be transferred within the brokerages of my brokerage firm's clearing house.
The bottom line is my brokerage firm's clearing house printed me a nice "certificate of deposit" but it does not bear the corporate seal or any identification from the company except that it shows I do own the property. I just can't get title of ownership. That belongs to the short position, which has my title of ownership for my property as collateral for a loan made by my broker thus selling my property. I can't vote the stock because the certificate of ownership is elsewhere as collateral. I can't get the money that the loaner and borrower made on selling my property nor any interest nor any thing but a deposit acknowledgment of that I do own the property. What it boils down to is a Short Seller has taken control of my property and thus my investment. Without any compensation to the property owner, this short seller has the certificate and the broker can not force the short seller to cover and release the certificate to its rightful owner. Mainly, this is the case because the certificates are locked-up covering short positions.
The Commodities market does not use other people’s property as the collateral. I can not believe that short selling using some one else’s property as collateral is allowed in America. Many reasons or rather excuses are given for allowing short selling. As you will see, none of them make much sense and most are against the law under any other circumstance.
Excuse #1 - Short-selling merely makes the market liquid.
That is true but at what cost. Only because short shares are added to the available outstanding shares, thus massive dilution by the market not the company. Normally the company stock structure is set in the by-laws of the company. The outstanding share count increases with each short selling position that is performed. In some cases, the stock is shorted 100%, doubling the amount of stock available in the market. In other words, the company does not have any control over the amount stock out in the market, the short selling traders/investors do. It makes no difference what the legal corporate document's state. Shorting can easily double whatever figure was given in the Articles of Incorporation. Liquid? Yes. Good for long investors? I don't think so.
Excuse #2 - Short selling balances the inflationary effect of securities margin trading, thus contributing to price stability.
Even if short selling were performed only on marginal securities this statement would still lack merit. But when you consider that on the Margin Buy side, the individual or firm has to put up their own money and or collateral that they rightfully own in order to purchase shares. Whereas on the short sell side, they do not have to put anything that they own, they borrow (steal) from someone else for the upcoming short selling collateral basis to create false premise of a decline market.
Simply, short sellers go out and borrow (steal) from another person's long position to use as collateral to sell the stock value down. Thus making a false market taking out the concept of supply and demand. This false selling drives the market down, which is the exactly opposite of why the long-term investor (the real owner of the collateral) bought the security. The long investor has been robbed in accordance to the "theft by taking" laws. Plus the long investor has no rights or options or choices and gains NOTHING from this strategy (plain and simple thievery).
Example: You go into a casino and buy chips (shares) and take a place at the crap table (market). I walk up and buy chips and place my bets on the pass (call) and then to hedge I place a bet (a buy in the market) on say the 8 (second highest combination of numbers with 7 being the highest combination). I decide to hedge my bet further so I ask the casino guy if I can take some of your money as collateral because I do not want to use my money. He replies, "I do not care." So I very sneakily reach over into your chips without you knowing and take a few or all thus placing them on the "No Pass" (put). I begin making money on my legitimate bets. Finally, a "seven" rolls before the roller makes his mark. I loose all my money in my legitimate bets BUT I have winnings from what I won on my legitimate bets Plus the "No Pass." I collect my winnings from the "No Pass" and then sneakily return your chips to you and pocket the profit. No Harm done!
Immediately, I would be charged with "theft by taking" and I would be instantly arrested and hauled off to jail. My winnings would go back to the house or to you (if you knew about it) because it was your money that I used as collateral to make the gain. I would not have made a gain if I had not borrowed (stolen) your chips as collateral to make the hedge bet for profit and protection of my money.
Now say that the casino guy went over to your position at the table. Sneakily, he took your chips and loaned them to me. Then that is a fraud and a conspiracy to rob you by a couple of con men. The casino guy (broker) and myself (short) would be hauled off to jail. But you would get the winnings just the same. And if the hedge that your chips (stock) were used as collateral happen to have been lost, you could get back your property because one of the con men worked for the casino (market) that committed the crime.
Excuse #3 - No Harm, No Foul. Also known as "the Rightful Owner was not harmed" in any way.
This is very similar to a car thief arguing that since he stole the car and returned it while the owner was away on vacation...he only borrowed it and it wasn't stealing!
As any good prosecutor would have quickly reminded the car thief, even if he didn't damage the car during the "borrowing," the car had more mileage on it that the owner didn't put there. And the resulting "wear and tear" constitutes sufficient "damages".
In the case of our "borrowed" stock, the damages are even more glaring. Especially when our long investor bought his property at $20. Due to massive short selling the stock dropped to $6. There our intrepid short seller covers and "returns" the long investor's property minus $14 in value. Clearly the long investor has $14 per share in damages. The car thief gets 3-5 in state housing and the professional SHORT gets a new Mercedes while the rightful long term owner is out his investment dollars that he had no control over whatsoever?
Excuse #4 - Shorts provide a floor and they support the stock at the lows when they cover.
The whole concept is nonsense and has no merit. Once the Short Sellers have successfully destroyed the value and have capitulation, then they cover. Thus after taking someone else's property to destroy the property's value thus robbing the rightful owner they see it as a good thing because they support the market at the low. One the floor is where the short selling decides to no longer drive the price down. Second after capitulation they are now the good guys. That's like saying that the doctor that sneaks up behind you steals your wallet, beats the starch out of you is really your friend because he is tending to your wounds. (Doctor comparison is Marty Lewis’)
Surrender of right to control over the property owned by the rightful owners.
Obviously, the professionals on Wall Street don't want to go to jail so they invented the following:
When you deposit your property with a brokerage, you have to sign a surrender of right to ownership agreement and thus the broker has the right to loan out your holdings as per his own "Best Interest" not the client.
If a casino made you sign an agreement that your chips could be loaned to someone else before you could gamble then that would make it legal? Even if it did would you ever play there? Yes because if you want to gamble you have to sign. The real point to this is that you have no options, choices or rights on property you own! If you wish to gamble (invest) you have to sign this agreement that basically gives the broker the right to loan (steal) your property to sell and profit from it. Now where does the agreement say you will be informed what is being done with your property or that you will receive anything for the loaning of your property or that the broker will perform their representations in your best interest. Would this agreement be considered a one-sided contract?
Best Interest
The brokers that an investor goes to and places their holdings with, not to mention represents the investor's trades in the market, are supposed to be working in the investor's best interest. Every professional that a fee is paid to in hard-earned money is supposed to do what is in the best interest for the client. However by forcing a client to sign away their rights, the investor is basically paying this professional to rob the client blind and profit from it in all aspects. It is beyond my ability to understand how the following is in the best interest of the rightful owner:
A professional loaning out his clients long position property as collateral to someone else whom has not paid the owner for the property for the purpose of manipulating the short-term, and mostly likely the long-term, value of the property down, which basically hurts the client's investment value.
Is this strategy in the long investor's best interest when the sole point of short selling to manipulate the market down and affect the value of the rightful owner? Especially since the rightful owner of the property gets nothing for his hard-earned money that was paid to own the property.
Rightful Owner Protection
Consider this, under the protection of the FDIC not one depositor has lost a penny since 1934! Since we are forced to deposit into a brokerage house (financial institution) that issues checkbooks and can LOAN out our property to those who would use that property to decline the value without our knowledge, are we protected by the FDIC? Again, especially when the financial institution then loans our property to individuals or firms whose intent is to harm the value of our investment! Does the FDIC cover the loss of my property value when it is loaned because my property was used to harm my investment value? What ever happen to the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation?
Full Disclosure and Right to Know.
This applies to both the real owner and the potential buyer of the borrowed (stolen) collateral. The owner of the property has the right to full disclosure. He has a right to know when his property has been loaned. Of course, the person buying the loaned (stolen) property has a right to know also they are not buying the property from the real rightful owner. Since the Broker is basically a "fence", the broker should inform the potential buyer of the property that the seller is offering for sell is not the rightful owner but has borrowed (stolen) the property without the rightful owner's knowledge. Which brings up the point of the legal laws of buying stolen property. At least the buyer would then know the property was stolen and thus could lose all their money because what they are buying will not be rightfully theirs until the real owner decides to sell his ownership.
If someone borrows someone else's property as collateral this is fraud by existing laws of America. No where else does the law allow this to happen. People go to jail for this nonsense or for even trying it.
Short selling is the practice of distorting and creating a false market.
Short selling is an opportunists (criminals) way of manipulating (driving) the market down by the unadulterated weight of long-term holder's positions being sold into the market. For the sole purpose to drive the stock price (property value) on a downward path (false representation) so short sellers can make a turn between the price at which they sold someone's property for and the price which they bought it back to return to the rightful owner, without having to ever physically having to purchase the property or disclose anything to anyone.
Most investors make the assumption the market is one of integrity and that both the buyer and seller own the stock they witness in the trading. If the trading is not the rightful owners trading their position the market is absolutely false. Especially because the trading is represented in such a way to can give the impression there is more issued stock in a company than there really is. That is a total falsehood and thus a fraud or fraudulent market controlled by forces that do not really own anything.
Short sellers relentlessly distort any information so they can to justify the downward pressure they are creating.
There is a point to distorting the market trading and the information on a company, and that is the whole strategy is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is the point at which short sellers tout themselves for a job well done, while the long term investor loses value through false pretenses. The negative criticism along with the negative movement in the stock price does have a very solid certain logic, capitulation so they can cover because those who sell at this point are really the investors who are the rightful owners of the stock (property) that was put up as collateral to sell the market down and crush property value.
Short Selling Potential Ponzi or Pyramid Scheme
Potential Pyramid Scheme is a fraudulent system of making money, which requires an endless stream of recruits (buyers) for success. Thus a short seller borrows some one's long position and sells it to someone else. That long position of the new buyer is now on the broker’s clearing house books and thus available for another short to borrow that position and sell it to yet another buyer and so forth and so on.
Potential Ponzi Scheme, is a fraudulent system of making money whereas a short seller borrows from one long position and sells it to someone. Then the short seller needs to cover so the short seller merely borrows from another long position to cover the first position the short borrowed against. The Short Seller never really covers or settles and so forth and so on. This is just one account. Imagine several or numerous.
Checks, Balances, & Regulation
Of course, once all this is presented, the short seller quickly change their excuse to the fact that there are no adequate checks and balances. They continue on with this logic that without regulation, short selling can be subject to abuse by market manipulators and detrimental to the market. However, one point the short sellers do not want is reporting because it is strictly voluntary. In other words, short sellers in the market whether regulated or not, listed or not, nobody really knows the extent of short positions in any one stock at any one time, and they do not want it to be known. Total transparency (public paper trail) is not an option for a short seller. But at all costs the short seller does not want to give up the ability to continue borrowing (free-riding or stealing) long-term positions that they can use as collateral to make a profit on. Short sellers do not want to hear anything about having to buy their collateral and then use it to short sell against. That would be absurd because that basically puts the whole concept back to supply and demand and the downward movement could nail them on the long side. This concept to short sellers this is totally unfair and criminal to no longer allows them to leverage against another investor's property.
I guess when the laws were being created that robbing banks, or fraudulently making representations to steal people's money or any of the theft by taking of other's property type tactics could be made acceptable by regulating this thievery. However these tactics are criminal activity by our existing laws in other circumstances.
Not just listed stocks OTCBB Market Maker Manipulation
Market Maker Manipulation is the practices of intentionally short selling a security to suppress the price (Value) of a security driving it downward regardless of increased demand. Should the market maker get caught short, the trading loses it volatility and eventually almost stops trading due to the Market Makers tactics, especially concerning OTCBB such as:
- spreading the gap between the bid and ask (20% or higher)
- locking the bid and ask at the same value
- boxing the bid and ask whereas the same market maker is on both
- not filling or executing orders
- Painting the paint (executing buys and sells to which ever side the Market Maker needs to show weakness)
- Rolling the tape (repeated small trades on the bid tanking the security price value)
- Etc.
However, these tactics are performed to stop buying interest and thus kill the public's confidence. Since Market Makers are suppose to be the only market influence that can short sell unmarginable securities, would not a short seller need a market maker? Short Sellers and the OTCBB Market Makers have no regulations to prevent them from viciously manipulating the trading. It is completely up to the short sellers and the market maker's best interest as to whether the price of a security goes up or go down. However, a declining share price is the preferred because they buy on the "Bid¨ and sell on the "Ask¨ in the OTC negotiated market. Thus the lower the price the market makers make that much more profit from small time investors.
The US market's Listed stocks have been shorted to incredible lows.
However, our off-shore elements (friendly, neutral or terrorist) are using this criminal strategy to crush the very foundation of our financial market. Further, the greedy within this country are right in there with those who would cripple America. This hedging strategy is the very vessel being used by our enemies to destroy the financial strength of America and at the same time finance their agenda's. The time for action is now. How far does out financial backbone get broke? When our market is at ZERO!
Short selling is actually criminal activity and punishable by the existing laws of this great nation
We must eliminate short selling or put into place extreme new restrictions on short sellers. The simplest being to require at least the same amount of collateral value at the time the short seller wishes to short sell some one's property. Disclose to the rightful owner his property is needed for shorting and thus give the owner the right to refuse loaning out his property for someone to sell. If the owner somehow does agree to his property being loaned out then the short seller should have to justly compensate the rightful owner for use of his property as collateral. Short Sellers should have to put up their own proper collateral and not that of someone else as is required when purchasing stocks.
This is America and the existing laws basically state, I have the right to sell what is mine. It states further than I can not sell what is not mine to sell, or use my neighbor's property as collateral. Following the existing laws of America, would requiring notification of the shareholder of his shares being "borrowed" (stolen) and notifying the buyer of the "borrowed" (stolen) nature of the shares he is purchasing would be a logical and just addition. Of course the preference is to put this practice in the category where it belongs...First Degree Felony. And place its practitioners where they belong...PRISON!
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
LOL ... I can;t saral ... I gave it my best shot.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Oh I know and agree with you totally but hey I did the best I could to defend her choice of words ...
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
I apologize but your stance on OTCBB is no accurate and a lot of OTCBB are better companies than listed stocks but the limitations imposed on them is sterotypical profiling that all OTCBB are bad and that is inaccurate and impulsive thus naive. Further the vast majority of stock is any stock that trades in the market was also when in fact Market Makers short off the clearing house long position as collateral for their short positions thus making your statement implusive and naive . As far as high float that is also not relevent because shorting increases the float massively thus not by the company but by the short selling borrowing outher's property as collateral which makes your statement implusive and thus naive.
Hoever all your statements were harmless and demostrates a lack of knowledge in the market and thus merely naive.
That is why I refered to you as I did ... But I apologize for saying you were naive.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
North I agree that the desire to make money is greed basically ... thus that is basic emotion for people to progress. With out greed they become homeless by her analysis. Can;t argue that concept.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Good Poet ... if everyone thought the same it would be a dull world.
First - I agree with and nothing wrong with that
Second - MMs are shorters are do you not talk to them or watch the trading ... they short and most I talk to say they do it because they can or it is the nature of the beast
Third - I doubt that is accurate but that is our opinons. I know off shore hedge funds, like George Soros has made billions shorting.
Fourth - Phantom, and numerous others including some broker I talk to they do not have clue what the companies they short even do. They do not care overbought means short.
Fifth - Ok I agree depend on your strategy
Sixth - your naive ... an the OTCBB slam thus no credibility ... NEXT
Seven - ??? they are selling the stock and when they buy it ti instantly goes the real property owner they never own it.
Eight - I have no problem with puts and calls
My problem is legalize theft.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Go IBIZ go... eom
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Bop I am tired and rereading again I found more grammar and syntax errors. But here is revised but I have read it so much I am not sure I can find much more.
Stop Selling Short!
by Gary Swancey and David Weed
First I would like to say, I applaud anyone who stands up for this Nation and its people. Not many men have the courage to speak out about the true evil and wrong that directly affects the people of this country. Calling for the SEC to temporarily halt short selling gets my vote. However, I would like to voice a few concerns even though a temporary halt of short selling will make the market a market of the people, by the people and for the people for at least a little while.
This composition concerns and focuses on Short Selling, the art of borrowing (legally stealing) people's hard-earned property for profit and gain to pre-sell the rightful owners property, thus manipulate a downward market and decline the value of the rightful owner's property.
The basis for this composition is simple; I bought a security and delivered the certificate to a broker. The broker instantly loaned out my property that I bought and paid for with my own money, to a larger brokerage house. Something went wrong and when I called for my certificate I discovered that my broker could not deliver back to me a certificate for the property. After almost a year of trying to get my certificate, I received a "certificate of deposit" because there were no certificates available to be issued by the transfer agent. That meant the short position at the larger brokerage house needed my certificate of ownership as collateral to protect the short position. Thus my property (shares) could only be transferred within the brokerages of my brokerage firm's clearing house.
The bottom line is my brokerage firm's clearing house printed me a nice "certificate of deposit" but it does not bear the corporate seal or any identification from the company except that it shows I do own the property. I just can't get title of ownership. That belongs to the short position, which has my title of ownership for my property as collateral for a loan made by my broker thus selling my property. I can't vote the stock because the certificate of ownership is elsewhere as collateral. I can't get the money that the loaner and borrower made on selling my property nor any interest nor any thing but a deposit acknowledgment of that I do own the property. What it boils down to is a Short Seller has taken control of my property and thus my investment. Without any compensation to the property owner, this short seller has the certificate and the broker can not force the short seller to cover and release the certificate to its rightful owner. Mainly, this is the case because the certificates are locked-up covering short positions.
Am I the only one that views this as a problem? I can not believe that short selling is allowed in America. Many reasons or rather excuses are given for allowing short selling. As you will see, none of them make much sense and most are against the law under any other circumstance.
Excuse #1 -Short-selling merely makes the market liquid.
That is true only because short shares are added to the available outstanding shares. Normally the company stock structure is set in the by-laws of the company. The outstanding share count increases with each short selling position that is performed. In some cases, the stock is shorted 100%, doubling the amount of stock available in the market. In other words, the company does not have any control over the amount stock out in the market, the short selling traders/investors do. It makes no difference what the legal corporate document's state. Shorting can easily double whatever figure was given in the Articles of Incorporation. Liquid? Yes. Good for long investors? I don't think so.
Excuse #2 - Short selling balances the inflationary effect of securities margin trading, thus contributing to price stability.
Even if short selling were performed only on marginal securities this statement would still lack merit. But when you consider that on the Margin Buy side, the individual or firm has to put up their own money and or collateral that they rightfully own in order to purchase shares. Whereas on the short sell side, they do not have to put anything that they own, they borrow (steal) from someone else for the upcoming short selling collateral basis to create false premise of a decline market.
Simply, short sellers go out and borrow (steal) from another person's long position to use as collateral to sell the stock value down. Thus making a false market taking out the concept of supply and demand. This false selling drives the market down, which is the exactly opposite of why the long-term investor (the real owner of the collateral) bought the security. The long investor has been robbed in accordance to the "theft by taking" laws. Plus the long investor has no rights or options or choices and gains NOTHING from this strategy (plain and simple thievery).
Example: You go into a casino and buy chips (shares) and take a place at the crap table (market). I walk up and buy chips and place my bets on the pass (call) and then to hedge I place a bet (a buy in the market) on say the 8 (second highest combination of numbers with 7 being the highest combination). I decide to hedge my bet further so I ask the casino guy if I can take some of your money as collateral because I do not want to use my money. He replies, "I do not care." So I very sneakily reach over into your chips without you knowing and take a few or all thus placing them on the "No Pass" (put). I begin making money on my legitimate bets. Finally, a "seven" rolls before the roller makes his mark. I loose all my money in my legitimate bets BUT I have winnings from what I won on my legitimate bets Plus the "No Pass." I collect my winnings from the "No Pass" and then sneakily return your chips to you and pocket the profit. No Harm done!
Immediately, I would be charged with "theft by taking" and I would be instantly arrested and hauled off to jail. My winnings would go back to the house or to you (if you knew about it) because it was your money that I used as collateral to make the gain. I would not have made a gain if I had not borrowed (stolen) your chips as collateral to make the hedge bet for profit and protection of my money.
Now say that the casino guy went over to your position at the table. Sneakily, he took your chips and loaned them to me. Then that is a fraud and a conspiracy to rob you by a couple of con men. The casino guy (broker) and myself (short) would be hauled off to jail. But you would get the winnings just the same. And if the hedge that your chips (stock) were used as collateral happen to have been lost, you could get back your property because one of the con men worked for the casino (market) that committed the crime.
Excuse #3 - No Harm, No Foul. Also known as "the Rightful Owner was not harmed" in any way.
This is very similar to a car thief arguing that since he stole the car and returned it while the owner was away on vacation...he only borrowed it and it wasn't stealing!
As any good prosecutor would have quickly reminded the car thief, even if he didn't damage the car during the "borrowing," the car had more mileage on it that the owner didn't put there. And the resulting "wear and tear" constitutes sufficient "damages".
In the case of our "borrowed" stock, the damages are even more glaring. Especially when our long investor bought his property at $20. Due to massive short selling the stock dropped to $6. There our intrepid short seller covers and "returns" the long investor's property minus $14 in value. Clearly the long investor has $14 per share in damages. The car thief gets 3-5 in state housing and the professional SHORT gets a new Mercedes while the rightful long term owner is out his investment dollars that he had no control over whatsoever?
Excuse #4 - Shorts provide a floor and they support the stock at the lows when they cover.
The whole concept is nonsense and has no merit. Once the Short Sellers have successfully destroyed the value and have capitulation, then they cover. Thus after taking someone else's property to destroy the property's value thus robbing the rightful owner they see it as a good thing because they support the market at the low. One the floor is where the short selling decides to no longer drive the price down. Second after capitulation they are now the good guys. That's like saying that the doctor that sneaks up behind you steals your wallet, beats the starch out of you is really your friend because he is tending to your wounds. (Doctor comparison is Marty Lewis’)
Surrender of right to control over the property owned by the rightful owners.
Obviously, the professionals on Wall Street don't want to go to jail so they invented the following:
When you deposit your property with a brokerage, you have to sign a surrender of right to ownership agreement and thus the broker has the right to loan out your holdings as per his own "Best Interest" not the client.
If a casino made you sign an agreement that your chips could be loaned to someone else before you could gamble then that would make it legal? Even if it did would you ever play there? Yes because if you want to gamble you have to sign. The real point to this is that you have no options, choices or rights on property you own! If you wish to gamble (invest) you have to sign this agreement that basically gives the broker the right to loan (steal) your property to sell and profit from it. Now where does the agreement say you will be informed what is being done with your property or that you will receive anything for the loaning of your property or that the broker will perform their representations in your best interest.
Best Interest
The brokers that an investor goes to and places their holdings with, not to mention represents the investor's trades in the market, are supposed to be working in the investor's best interest. Every professional that a fee is paid to in hard-earned money is supposed to do what is in the best interest for the client. However by forcing a client to sign away their rights, the investor is basically paying this professional to rob the client blind and profit from it in all aspects. It is beyond my ability to understand how the following is in the best interest of the rightful owner:
A professional loaning out his clients long position property as collateral to someone else whom has not paid the owner for the property for the purpose of manipulating the short-term, and mostly likely the long-term, value of the property down, which basically hurts the client's investment value.
Is this strategy in the long investor's best interest when the sole point of short selling to manipulate the market down and affect the value of the rightful owner? Especially since the rightful owner of the property gets nothing for his hard-earned money that was paid to own the property.
Rightful Owner Protection
Consider this, under the protection of the FDIC not one depositor has lost a penny since 1934! Since we are forced to deposit into a brokerage house (financial institution) that issues checkbooks and can LOAN out our property to those who would use that property to decline the value without our knowledge, are we protected by the FDIC? Again, especially when the financial institution then loans our property to individuals or firms whose intent is to harm the value of our investment! Does the FDIC cover the loss of my property value when it is loaned because my property was used to harm my investment value? What ever happen to the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights that forbids the taking of private property for public use without just compensation?
Full Disclosure and Right to Know.
This applies to both the real owner and the potential buyer of the borrowed (stolen) collateral. The owner of the property has the right to full disclosure. He has a right to know when his property has been loaned. Of course, the person buying the loaned (stolen) property has a right to know also they are not buying the property from the real rightful owner. Since the Broker is basically a "fence", the broker should inform the potential buyer of the property that the seller is offering for sell is not the rightful owner but has borrowed (stolen) the property without the rightful owner's knowledge. Which brings up the point of the legal laws of buying stolen property. At least the buyer would then know the property was stolen and thus could lose all their money because what they are buying will not be rightfully theirs until the real owner decides to sell his ownership.
If someone borrows someone else's property as collateral this is fraud by existing laws of America. No where else does the law allow this to happen. People go to jail for this nonsense or for even trying it.
Short selling is the practice of distorting and creating a false market.
Short selling is an opportunists (criminals) way of manipulating (driving) the market down by the unadulterated weight of long-term holder's positions being sold into the market. For the sole purpose to drive the stock price (property value) on a downward path (false representation) so short sellers can make a turn between the price at which they sold someone's property for and the price which they bought it back to return to the rightful owner, without having to ever physically having to purchase the property or disclose anything to anyone.
Most investors make the assumption the market is one of integrity and that both the buyer and seller own the stock they witness in the trading. If the trading is not the rightful owners trading their position the market is absolutely false. Especially because the trading is represented in such a way to can give the impression there is more issued stock in a company than there really is. That is a total falsehood and thus a fraud or fraudulent market controlled by forces that do not really own anything.
Short sellers relentlessly distort any information so they can to justify the downward pressure they are creating.
There is a point to distorting the market trading and the information on a company, and that is the whole strategy is to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is the point at which short sellers tout themselves for a job well done, while the long term investor loses value through false pretenses. The negative criticism along with the negative movement in the stock price does have a very solid certain logic, capitulation so they can cover because those who sell at this point are really the investors who are the rightful owners of the stock (property) that was put up as collateral to sell the market down and crush property value.
Short Selling Potential Ponzi or Pyramid Scheme
Potential Pyramid Scheme is a fraudulent system of making money, which requires an endless stream of recruits (buyers) for success. Thus a short seller borrows some one's long position and sells it to someone else. That long position of the new buyer is now on the broker’s clearing house books and thus available for another short to borrow that position and sell it to yet another buyer and so forth and so on.
Potential Ponzi Scheme, is a fraudulent system of making money whereas a short seller borrows from one long position and sells it to someone. Then the short seller needs to cover so the short seller merely borrows from another long position to cover the first position the short borrowed against. The Short Seller never really covers or settles and so forth and so on. This is just one account. Imagine several or numerous.
Checks, Balances, & Regulation
Of course, once all this is presented, the short seller quickly change their excuse to the fact that there are no adequate checks and balances. They continue on with this logic that without regulation, short selling can be subject to abuse by market manipulators and detrimental to the market. However, one point the short sellers do not want is reporting because it is strictly voluntary. In other words, short sellers in the market whether regulated or not, listed or not, nobody really knows the extent of short positions in any one stock at any one time, and they do not want it to be known. But at all costs the short seller does not want to give up the ability to continue borrowing (free-riding or stealing) long-term positions that they can use as collateral to make a profit on. Short sellers do not want to hear anything about having to buy their collateral and then use it to short sell against. That would be absurd because that basically puts the whole concept back to supply and demand and the downward movement could nail them on the long side. This concept to short sellers this is totally unfair and criminal to no longer allows them to leverage against another investor's property.
I guess when the laws were being created that robbing banks, or fraudulently making representations to steal people's money or any of the theft by taking of other's property type tactics could be made acceptable by regulating this thievery. However these tactics are criminal activity by our existing laws in other circumstances.
Not just listed stocks OTCBB Market Maker Manipulation
Market Maker Manipulation is the practices of intentionally short selling a security to suppress the price (Value) of a security driving it downward regardless of increased demand. Should the market maker get caught short, the trading loses it volatility and eventually almost stops trading due to the Market Makers tactics, especially concerning OTCBB such as:
- spreading the gap between the bid and ask (20% or higher)
- locking the bid and ask at the same value
- boxing the bid and ask whereas the same market maker is on both
- not filling or executing orders
- Painting the paint (executing buys and sells to which ever side the Market Maker needs to show weakness)
- Rolling the tape (repeated small trades on the bid tanking the security price value)
- Etc.
However, these tactics are performed to stop buying interest and thus kill the public's confidence. Since Market Makers are suppose to be the only market influence that can short sell unmarginable securities, would not a short seller need a market maker? Short Sellers and the OTCBB Market Makers have no regulations to prevent them from viciously manipulating the trading. It is completely up to the short sellers and the market maker's best interest as to whether the price of a security goes up or go down. However, a declining share price is the preferred because they buy on the "Bid¨ and sell on the "Ask¨ in the OTC negotiated market. Thus the lower the price the market makers make that much more profit from small time investors.
The US market's Listed stocks have been shorted to incredible lows.
However, our off-shore elements (friendly, neutral or terrorist) are using this criminal strategy to crush the very foundation of our financial market. Further, the greedy within this country are right in there with those who would cripple America. This hedging strategy is the very vessel being used by our enemies to destroy the financial strength of America and at the same time finance their agenda's. The time for action is now. How far does out financial backbone get broke? When our market is at ZERO!
Short selling is actually criminal activity and punishable by the existing laws of this great nation
We must eliminate short selling or put into place extreme new restrictions on short sellers. The simplest being to require at least the same amount of collateral value at the time the short seller wishes to short sell some one's property. Disclose to the rightful owner his property is needed for shorting and thus give the owner the right to refuse loaning out his property for someone to sell. If the owner somehow does agree to his property being loaned out then the short seller should have to justly compensate the rightful owner for use of his property as collateral. Short Sellers should have to put up their own proper collateral and not that of someone else as is required when purchasing stocks.
This is America and the existing laws basically state, I have the right to sell what is mine. It states further than I can not sell what is not mine to sell, or use my neighbor's property as collateral. Following the existing laws of America, would requiring notification of the shareholder of his shares being "borrowed" (stolen) and notifying the buyer of the "borrowed" (stolen) nature of the shares he is purchasing would be a logical and just addition. Of course the preference is to put this practice in the category where it belongs...First Degree Felony. And place its practitioners where they belong...PRISON!
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
BOP my co author is putting the finishing touches on it. I spend most of Yesterday and last naight working on it. I believe I have a lot of eye opener scenarioes.
I have asked BOP to post it here for Patsy, BB & toshac. I believe they should have first right of refusal to make the petition.
They started something that is noble and admirable to say the least for the small investor. This will have no risk and is merely an opinion. But boy what an opinion.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
This is what I sent to the SEC today on ECN & ATS being allowed to be MM on OTCBB.
To whom it may concern:
I would like to offer my comments on the PROPOSED RULE CHANGES of the SEC News Digest Issue 2001-165 dated August 24, 2001where it states: The National Association of Securities Dealers, through its subsidiary, The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc., has filed a proposed rule change (SR-NASD- 2001-44) to allow automated trading systems (ATSs) and electronic communications networks (ECNs) to participate on the OTC Bulletin Board. (Rel. 34-44732) The Philadelphia Stock Exchange filed a proposed rule change and Amendment No. 1 thereto (SR-Phlx-99-52) to adopt Rule 51, enforcement of capital funding fee. Publication of the notice is expected in the Federal Register during the week of August 27. (Rel. 34-44733) The National Securities Clearing Corporation filed a proposed rule change (SR-NSCC-2001-07) that would allow. NSCC to (i) further automate the buy-in process of CNS positions, (ii) allow for Buy-In Notices to be filed on successive days provided that the quantity of securities representing the sum of the Notices does not exceed the member's total long position, and (iii) revise Retransmittal Notices to include the identity of the Buy-In originator. Publication of the proposal is expected the Federal Register during the week of August 27. (Rel. 34- 44736)
This is a very solid change that will assist the small investor to have a level playing field. As you are aware, the OTCBB markets are fraught with Pump & Dump schemes but even worse is the other side of the coin, the Shorting & Distort scheme. To date the regulators have not addressed the short & distort scheme or the market influence on line that do exactly the opposite as the Pump & Dump, however, the SEC has and will go after the Pump & Dump schemes. Because the Short & Distort Societies realize they are above the law they can control the market with n fear of regulators does not exist.
S&D bias with no checks and balances totally affects the supply and demand of the trading of a security, especially since OTCBBs which are not supposed to be able to be shorted until they are marginal. The implementation of ECN & ATS as market makers will greatly assist in taking out the controlling factor that shorts in the OTCBB have because the shorting is not regulated.
The Market Makers spreads for some reason spread out the security with massive gaps when a short call is made by one of the shorting gurus to its followers and to effectively kill any buying interest that comes into play. By shorting this forces a false downward movement to simulate a "Bear Raid" then to support this false pressure the bashers (opposite of pumpers) begin their public campaign of lies and twist information to support the negative downside pressure. When you further consider the MMs spreading out the bid ask it is almost like stealing candy from a baby. But this is not candy it is hard earned money of long investors.
But this sure bet scheme to steal investor’s money will at least take out the MMs that assist in killing the interest and forcing compitulation in order to cover. It will also stop the locking can boxing the MMs do to kill the trading. This also hurts the company severely and thus investor confidence is destroyed. It is almost as if the MMs and the shorts are in league together to steal money from small long-term investor who are not day traders or shorters.
ECN & ATS will allow the small investor to get better execution and thus take out the control of the MMs and their large spreads to kill the liquidity in the trading of the stock as the bashers do their lies to keep the interest killed and try to kill the company and long –term investor’s interest. ECN & ATS will improve the liquidity of the trading because it will not have an agenda to move the stock up or down but allow it to trade regardless of the short position and the distorting.
ECN will improve long-term investor’s confidence because the market has been allowed to move from an investment vessel to a day trading vessel. At least the long-term investor will have an alternative around the no fills, large spreads and liquidity problems of a security.
This rule is a wonderful proposal for the small investor.
Gary Swancey
Coral Sprigs Florida.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Wait till I have my petition write up done ... you are going to get a surprise. did you know that reporting a short position is voluntary on any market and not required?
No one knows how many shares are short in a security only what is volunteered.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
No he can;t the camera broke and the girls threatened to quit buying the magazine.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Many a good company that came public to use their stock as a financing vessel get destroyed by short selling. Of course there are stock printing machines but the stock does have a direct affect on the survial of the company and failure.
What is so bad a company issues 5 M shares and the Short Sellers borrow that stock and thus 10M is in the market driving the value down. If they make an acquisition the shorts sell that also.
Does not matter about the corporate charter or the right of ownership of supply & demand because the shorts can short the orignal owners and then other shorts can short the shorted stock positions held by the buyers.
I have seen where more stock was held in a short position on a listed stock that was issued and outstanding.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
The only reason it would die from short-selling is if there was a lack of fundamentals. Short-sellers don't just pick out stocks and say "Hey, now that one looks like a good one to beat up!" There has to be a reason to short and because of this a proper valuation needs to be put on the company.
I disagree ... most shorters I know and have talked to including MMs are cold blooded and they short out of greed, mostly technical analysis. Most of the time they rarely even know any of the fundamentals and could careless. It si oversold it is shortable. Only when they possibly get hung do they actually go look for a way to bash the stock to get the real owners to sell their ownership which the short buys to cover and never really holds a legit ownership in the stock.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
I talked to BB and he did not have time to draft a petition. I have been an advocate for the small investor and anti-short since a situation happened to me back in 1999. I have detailed the event and written a first draft which another warrior against shorting is reviewing it this minute.
I want BB and Patsy to read it and make sure it agrees with what they started. If they do not wish to be part of a petition that is fine. The word has to get out some how. I sent off two today one being about the day trading concerning cash accounts and the OTCBB being permitted to trade with ECN & ATS as Market makers.
However, this write up is probably not like anything that has ever been written before and focuses strictly on the manipulation of short selling and the screwing of shareholders, the real owner of the stock.
There is no market manipulation or trading restrictions merely a penned opinion. First admendment voicing an opinion and not by the hedge funds or traders that use it to affective drop a long-term small investor's value using their property against them.
It is rather lengthy and if Bb & Patsy do not wish to spear head the petition I will and my other advocate oir we all can and I will take the petition myself and be the ring leader to catch any flack should there be any for the regulators.
The petition will be sent to the SEC, the Congressional Finance committee, and some real world media like the WSJ, Fox News, CNNfn, etc.
Hoefully it will done by tomorrow sometime. Small investors have to voice there conserns about our positions being used to drive down the value of our investments.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Matt here is the counter for your bank statements not always true. Since the start of FDIC insurance on January 1, 1934, not one depositor has lost a cent of insured funds as a result of a failure.
No matter what the bank does I can't lose a cent in value in my account and in most cases they pay me interest whether they make money on my money or not.
A short's sole purpose is to drive the price down thus affecting the value of any property that was borrowed, stole whatever.
What is wrong if someone thinks the property is over valued with going and buying the property to use as collateral and short sell against that property?
Answer: because he would have to put up money to buy the collateral. The main focus of a short is not to put their money up ... its to use other's property and if successful destroy the property value by using the property but give you back your property after destroy the valuebut made tons or money. Hedge funds never go long they use other's position to rape and steal value but they would not be able to if they could not borrow that which they do nto own.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
It is always true .. the value in my bank account remains the same. If the bank does something to harm my value like the savings & trust scheme, the FDIC protects my value.
If the short sells someone else's property and the value increases I really do not care. Hate it for him his stake is someone else's property that he does not own and is using it to try to make money on. Whether he wins or loses as in my last example with the car does not matter.
The basis the seller is selling what is not the sellers.
Matt what part of borrowing your property to affect bring down your property value do you not undertand ... you paid for your investment and received property for that exchange of your hard earned money. Just because someone feels the value is too high and decides to drive the value down using your property is not legal by any other circumstance under the law.
Someone comes along and thinks they have a right to borrow my property and just play with it but as long as I get it back no harm done is crazy. But the harm is value of the investment because the short seller is NOT go to be responsible for any rally. The short seller primary logic is to drive the price down. He gets hung that is not the point. The point is the short is using my property to affect the value of my property to capitalize by profit. If he gets caught short I could ccareless.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
HUH ... VALUE MATT VALUE ... a bank does not use my money to harm me financially where a thieving short seller does ... If my five dollars I put in the banks deceases to $2.00 because the bank used my money to affect my value then that is criminal. But that does not happen so it is not a goor example.
Just like your example of elimating the other side of a vote.
Ok I come take your car with permission of the bank who holds your title because you had to sign a agreement that they have the right to loan out your car when you opened your account. I do this while you are asleep and drive to work at pizza hut. I drive all night making deliveries. By the time you wake up your car is back in the driveway.
According to you you were not harmed. You did however lose value on the car due to wear and tear PLUS I did not have to pay any up keep or any of the note or insurance or anything. Thus you lost VALUE.
But you do not know the thief had taken place ... thus I guess you feel that no harm or crime was committed.
However, say I wreck your car and have to get it repaired and do so before returning it to you. You never know I wrecked you car nor I took the car. So no harm is done.
You are making no sense. Selling what is not yours is illegal by the laws of the USA ... except the market for now.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
So again the best interest of your investment is not considered in the hands of the fee paid professional ...
Volitality is a crock because the market is flooded with stock that does not exist. what happens when rightful owners do not sell ... the market spreads the bid and ask and stops the trading.
Trading occurs because the rightful owners are averaging down and the shorts are borrowing every share they can to sell into the market to profit on the downside.
If they can't cover by getting rightful owners or the people they sold the rightful owners stock to then they use tactics to stop the trading.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
No temporary will put the market at what investors investing believe a stock is worth thus a market value based on the shareholders. In 30 days the thieves will come in and borrow the ong position and put the stock where they believe they want it to make a profit which is the down side and then buy it back and return the borrowed (stolen) property back to the rightful owner but the rightful onwer has lost value in thei investment because their property was used against them.
so you are right shorting needs to be totally elimated. Then the market will be a regulated negotiated market by the rightful owners of the stock.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
North first off ... we presently have a regulated manipulated market because the manipulation is the ability of a short seller to borrow and sell what is not his thus a market of the shorts by the short and for the shorts...
If short selling, the criminal thieery activity, is stopped we would have a regulated free flowing market of the people by the people and for the people because only the rightful cowners of stock would be buying and selling.
Now just because the point is that thought I stole, borrowed, free rode off what some else owns and was able to get that back to them without their knowledge that I did this criminal deed does not make any less a crime made.
Whether you profit or lose is not the point ... the point is this is AMerica and stealing, borrowing, or whatever without the true rightful owners knowledge is agaisnt the laws of AMerica except in the market.
If you want to pull this agreement of brokers that they have the right to do what they want remember these are professional that charge you a fee and calinm to be working in your best interest plus you have no rights, or options or choices or say so over what your rightfully own. Also is the broker is paid as a professional to represt your best interest loaning out your porperty to be sold without your knowledge to drive down an investment value (short) against your investment strategy (long)is also criminal except in the market.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Matt change your variables to this for the 30 day temporary scenario.
All people that have a legit ballot that is theirs, please vote.
All those people that have ballots from name off graves and relocation rosters, please wait 30 days.
The temporary vote will be a true and accurate vote of the people by the people and rightful voters however in 31 days the vote count is then manipulated screwing the rightful voters by the act of fraud.
But I like the glorious woman insertion.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
MAtt ... That is nonsense. Why don't you use the reality of free flowing voting instead an off the wall scenario.
The polls are swamped by people wanting their candiate to win. Gore (downward influence) and Bush (positive influence) now a skanky old hag goes and finds people who will not be around to cast their votes. She gets those ballots without the person's knowledge and cast it for Gore. Would you say that is a free flowing vote ? no its manipulated and that is exactly what short selling is ... borrowing from some else their property and selling it without their knowledge or consent and thus creating false or fraudulent vote count.
I do agree that temporary halting fo short selling would cause the market to go up because it would only the real owners of the property exercising their right to buy and sell their property without someone else borrowing or stealling it to presell and make a profit. it wouldbe a supply and demand scenario free flowing market where people in their buying and selling decide what the price of something is NOT a thief who uses your property as colateral till they can drive the value of your property to a point where you will sell and thus they merely buy the property to cover what they presold and still do not own the property never have but made the money off your porperty.
Short selling is criminal and breaks every law of thievery and fraud the USA has in its laws.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Short selling is criminal and goes against every existing law the USA has on thief by taking, fraud, stealing, free-riding you name it. The US market is not a free flowing or supply and demand scenario. It is purely a manipulated market by short sellers using others property as collateral for profit and thus creating a false & fraudulent market coupled with bashers and negative spin doctors to further the false and fraudulent to get compitulation to get the REAL owenrs of the property to sell so they can cover aand profit from pre selling property they do not own and will never own ...
It is all manipulation to get the real owners to sell their property lower than where the thieves sold it for you and thus drove the stock price down. Under any other circumstance people would be arrested and thrown in jail for selling what they do not own and stealing that which they sold for someone else.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
The regulators are trying everything from unlimiting companies buyback to this to whatever... but the main vessel to destroy our market and finacial foundation they will not do.
Short Selling!
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Yep ... whatever it takes to hold it down and a 33% spread to kill interest.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Nasdaq mulls waiver of $1 delisting rule
NEW YORK, Sept 25 (Reuters) - The Nasdaq stock market is considering changing its regulations so that companies whose share price has fallen below $1 may not be delisted, sources close to the situation told Reuters on Tuesday.
There are around 669 Nasdaq companies trading now below $1 and a number of companies have been delisted this year as the market has fallen sharply.
Nasdaq sends a company a notice telling it to shape up after it trades for less than $1 a share for 30 days in a row. If a company does not get its closing share price back above the $1 level for 10 trading days in a row during the next 90 days, Nasdaq sends it a delisting notice, which it can appeal.
An executive at one well-known technology company, whose shares are trading below the key $1 level and which asked not to be identified, told Reuters they had been informed by Nasdaq officials that it would not enforce its delisting rule, even though the company's shares had traded below $1 for 30 days.
Another technology company, whose stock also has traded below $1 for more than 30 days, said Nasdaq officials had told it that they were reviewing the delisting regulations.
One chief executive of a leading share dealing firm told Reuters he had advised Nasdaq it needed to change its delisting rules.
``The bottom line is that test alone ... is not adequate,'' he said. ``There should be a few tests, the $1 rule doesn't really make any sense.''
``The reality is there's a lot of companies that are $50 million to $250 million in market capitalization that certainly have a lot of shareholders and a lot of trading value and a lot of net capital ... and would qualify to stay on markets,'' the CEO said. ``But because we have this hard-and-fast $1 rule they're subject to delisting.''
A Nasdaq spokesman said it was ``closely monitoring these issues,'' but it was too early to make any statements.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adeola, Matthew" <Matthew.Adeola@NASD.com>
To: <gary@marketex.net>
Cc: "Gateway Web Comments (CRIS)" <GatewayWeb@EXCHANGE.NASD.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: NASDR.COM INQUIRY: Other/Misc - Swancey
> Gary,
>
> Thank you for your inquiry. The amended rule 2520 on margin requirements for
> day trading applies solely to trading in Margin Account. The amendment does
> not apply to trading in cash account. Note however, that NASD Rule
> 2520(f)(9) prohibits free-riding in cash account, and a member firm may have
> a stricter guideline on trading on margin.
>
> If you have further questions, you can call me at (202) 728 8098.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> Matthew Adeola
> NASD Regulation, Inc.
> Office of General Counsel
> Tel: (202) 728 8098
> Fax: (202) 728 8264
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gary Swancey [mailto:gary@marketex.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2001 6:59 AM
> To: NASDR Web Administrator
> Subject: NASDR.COM INQUIRY: Other/Misc - Swancey
>
>
> _______________________________
>
> Date: 06:58 9/25/2001
> First Name: Gary
> Last Name: Swancey
> Firm: Self
> Phone: 954 757-0582
> Email: gary@marketex.net
>
> Inquiry Category: Other - Miscellaneous
>
> Sub-Category: Field Not Currently in Use
>
> Inquiry details:
>
> Day Trading Rule: SR-NASD-00-03 amendment to NASD Rule 2520
> Purpose to impose overall more stringent margin requirements for day-trading
> customers.
>
> My Concern and need for clarification is based on my broker telling me that
> this rule is not just for margin accounts but also applies to cash accounts.
> I find this deeply concerning because I was also told if I day trading with
> my own cash account and get this margin call I have to open a margin account
> and come up with $25,000.00 in cash or marginable securities. The rules of
> cash accounts prevents me from exceeding the cash I have available and
> should I do exceed that the cash available I have a few days to settle up
> because cash accounts get a restriction for "free riding." Basically I am
> already under restriction that really prevents me from day trading beyond
> the cash I have in my cash account any further than my cash will allow me.
>
> Again, with the new Trading Rules I thought it was for margin accounts only.
> But since I have now been informed that since I do not have a margin account
> if I day trade on my cash account I will be forced to open a margin account
> and pay the $25,000.00 in cash OR marginable securities?
>
> 1. Since all I trade under is Cash Account does the "No Free Ride" rules
> automatically prevent me from day trading?
>
> 2. How can I be forced to open a margin account so I have to pay the
> $25,000.000 and fall under this new rule?
>
> 3. Am I not allowed to trade on my cash anyway I wish as long as I do not go
> over the cash available that I have?
>
> 4. Thus if I do day trade with my own money how can I be classified as a
> margin day trader and have to comply with this day trading margin call rule?
>
> 5. If cash accounts have to comply with the margin call rule for day trading
> does this in fact prevent me from using my personal cash to buy and sell as
> I see fit?
>
> I am totally confused how a cash account falls under the new day trading
> margin rules and thus the equity requirements. Also MyTrack has it on their
> website that this Margin Day Trading Rule affects Cash Accounts also.
>
> "21. Are Cash Accounts affected by these rules?
>
> Yes, Cash Accounts are affected. If you meet the definition of a Pattern Day
> Trader in your Cash Account, you will be subject to the $25,000 minimum
> equity requirement"
> http://www.mytrack.com/
>
> Any assistance you can offer will greatly help.
>
> Gary Swancey
> Coral Springs, Florida
>
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Well JJ it was my idea back in April.. it got approved and thus it got announced as it was suppose to. The releases says over a year. Heck they then had to pay 400K for to the debt rght after that PR.
Bart is very positive and he has been putting his money where his mouth is and has others. Of course I can not disclose others information specifically.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
There were some get stock today. No One is in a hurry the way the MMs do what they do plus the market is extremely scary. Or at least that is what I am hearing.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Huh is because you stated, "if they believe in the company's potential success..." The filings clearly shows they are doing other things with a higher priority with their capital ... So this statement cause me confusion.
I thought the capital was suppose to be used for what was best for the company to grow and thus if any capital that is overage then buy the stock within the time frame of the approval. They can believe in the company;s success but not be willing to put up capital they may need for more important areas of priority.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
O I agree with your assessment but I found the predictions strange as well.
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
No they go there ... In the first he predicts 1992 level ... Now I do not know if he means that as the year or actual figure of the Naz. However there was a lot of time ladpse after posting the NAZ at 3000 by end of September.
Hey could be nothing.
P2bAAAT
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Excel you did not go back far enough ... September 5, 2001 http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=$COMPX&read=58196
Seems he knew the market was going to crash to 1992 level by the 27 of this month.
But futher in Jun he predicted 3000 on the NAZ by the end of September
http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=$COMPX&read=54123
Seems like a total change of heart. 3000 to a 1992 level is quite a change in prediction.
P2bAAAT
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
HUH? I believe they have other priorities with the capital especially in this market and economy. But I will advise you if Bart decides to update me on the status.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
No warnings I am aware of ... I have posted all I can. As far as the stock price, in this market there is not much anyone can do at all. Bart has put out the news as it happens, got on CNNfn, made first mover and the market is vicious. CNBC and others are telling people to buy but hey no one is doing that ... New lows and stocks are getting killed.
I do not know why people are not buying. They is not much buying anywhere I see in the market.
News will come when Bart has something news worthy that he can get permission to release.
CIIR cash & restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Yep CBQ/networkland is still in business. amazing I was showing over 50K traded today then suddenly a lot just disappeared. WOnder if your buy scared em Sport.
CIIR cash or restricted stock
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey
Buying IBIZ at this level. FWIW
Proud To Be An American Against Terrorism & Its Propaganda!
:=) Gary Swancey