InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 71
Posts 1840
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/10/2017

Re: CD_98 post# 269845

Tuesday, 12/13/2022 9:03:24 AM

Tuesday, December 13, 2022 9:03:24 AM

Post# of 349434
Ok this is finally a bit of fact about the NSS situation in 98's post.

It is also the reason I have repeatedly said there is nothing to see with NSS.
The naked part means never existed. This is an internal mechanism that all of the possible external indicators, such as dilution, bearish down pressure, etcetera can all be explained away as "normal market activity."

It only really becomes outwardly visible in extreme conditions. FTD's mount as there was nothing to deliver. Basically what we saw with Lehman. It was not the reason for the collapse but certainly a nail in the coffin.

This is why it was made illegal when it had been a common practice, although frequently abused. Problem is it was made illegal "except." There are still provisions for it's use.

I understand why the NSS discussion in DBMM. DBMM has several earmarks of the possibility. The easiest finger to point, is at all the toxicity within the company's financial partners. Plus the ease of which DBMM could be taken out, that meant any nonexistent shares go poof.
But regardless of the what if's, it is difficult to prove something that never actually existed. So again I will say, it's speculation at best.

The only angle that intrigues me, is what that judge saw to dismiss. There is no disputing the fact that per regulation DBMM deserved revocation and ALJ readily admitted this. So then what did the ALJ see to recommend dismissal? Surely wasn't bad actors, as 95% of OTC is just that.

My personal thoughts are, she saw a disparity in the decision to go after DBMM, when there were many others in the equivalent or far worse regulatory compliance. I think she saw the decision to go after DBMM was not a throw at the dart board. Something indicated they may have been targeted. SEC is infiltrated with nefarious actors, same as many other government bodies. Anyone hear of the FBI?

This is my own huge speculation here but it certainly explains going against the historical collusion between DOE and ALJ. Then the exuberance with which DOE displayed defending the position.

Could just be a cat fight, lord knows. But certainly seems like some has a dog in this hunt somewhere...