I don’t agree, the perception of the public that the market is a rigged game is now fairly widespread amongst traders especially and the result is the discrediting of the regulators and our markets if the regulators do not address these factors.
When markets reach such points there is often immense reform. Plus technology has gotten far ahead of the regulators and they know it. So we will have to see. But if the abuse of the system is as widespread as this unique and much better written complaint suggests, we may see much better outcomes. It is better written than a lot of the county lawyers out there who really did not seem to have enough specific knowledge of the financial industry to describe what was really happening and used “naked short” as a broad catch-all that really had no explanation for what was happening. Lack of the right, legally operable vocabulary and unfamiliarly with the practices of the industry will typically doom lawsuits to not having much of an impact. I am not saying the circumstances referred to by the term naked shorting isn’t happening, but one needs to understand the mechanisms by which such manipulation occurs to really be able to have any legal impact.
The lawyers on this case at this time seem to be better able to formulate premises that have a very good expectation of addressing the problem. They are highly regarded, and the main attorney was head of the top regulatory agency in NJ, where a lot of these firms have their back offices. She has the sophistication and experience to address the issue and the vocabulary to speak the right language, and that is about 80% of the battle.
The ironic twist is that those engaged in “naked shorting” benefitted from promoting magical thinking about how the market is rigged and that small stocks are doomed. Do a little manipulation and then convince investors they can’t win, is a huge victory with these small stocks. So they ironically have a strong interest in promotion the notion that “resistance is futile”… and so, why not settle and just take the money…. You’ll never solve this big, bad problem, even the regulators are against you and in on it… that is more of the same argumentation style and really helps shorts and bears win at the end of the day. But it is not really true, it is true because of circumstance and challenges for plaintiffs and their attorneys and for all of the reasons I describe above.
It takes determination and stick-to-itness to solve problems like this and what company showed exactly that resolve in getting DCVax-L through its trial successfully? That’s right! NWBO. Hence why would some want to replace the CEO of such a successful effort? That’s right, those for whom such determination poses a threat. Great company, great team, very determined and they appear unlikely to give in. So very threatening to some.
Bullish
I own NWBO. My posts on iHub are always posted expressly as just my humble opinion (IMHO) and none are advice, just my opinion. I am NOT a financial advisor, and it is assumed that everyone is responsible for their own due diligence.
