Bill, I thought this was worthy of a repost.
Posted by: Mr. Bill
In reply to: CuttinRog who wrote msg# 1828 Date: 8/18/2007 9:02:33 PM
Post #
Yes. I could have sold an IOU for future delivery of what could not legally, possibly be delivered for $300,000 and did not. The approximate value of the shares (without considering a short position) was about 30 MILLION dollars (90 * $350K for a pinksheet shell). How can you sell an IOU - not the actual shares - for future delivery of something that can not be delivered to you? Anyone who carefully talked with Ameritrade was told that they did not yet have delivery of the shares, they have credits/IOUs for the future due bill that was being delivered on Wednesday in two days. If a proper legal market place was enforced then those shares one sold would never had been legally delivered. Then, how does one cover s short position of 3 BILLION shares with a stock that has an OS of 33M shares?
I had a friend who made $150K off of $1100.
The problem you have is you cannot sell even 1% of your holdings to be free. If you did so and the shares were not delivered you were still bankrupt. You could not sell 50% of your shares and be safe either because you had no guaranty that the shares would be delivered.
Further, the SEC had allowed companies in the past to change their minds and not do a FS after they had already been on the daily list.
Given this, how can one trade in a market place where there is total chaos.
GVRP changed symbol to MAMG - No reverse split can be found on any official government web site- not the otcbb or the nasdaq and yet the company did a 3M to 1 reverse split.
How is that legal?
The biggest case of FRAUD in the history of ALL markets - and done by the SEC and NASDAQ who allowed the company to do a reverse split "off the books". Oh, and a "forward split for 1/11th of the insiders" off the book.
How is any of that Bull Shit legal?
Why are regulators not doing 20 years in jail for fraud?
Why are the individuals involved with the company who violated the rules not doing hard jail time?
Why is the resolution "bury the stock and sweep it under the carpet. Give the main insider a tiny fine and let his buddies keep the cash" a valid legal fair resolution?
Why was the fair resolution of "those who are short need to buy the shares back off the market" not enforced?
Because it would have caused brokers who were next in line after the insider/friends of the insiders to go bankrupt. Ditto for those folks. Ditto for 3 or 4 market makers who had shorted the stock.
Who spent $1 MILLION dollars buying shares on 5/23/05 and why? Clearly a market maker who was short or a broker in a bind.
Why are the rules discarded when major players have huge risks of going belly up?
Rules are rules. Either apply them fairly and evenly or abolish the SEC and NASDAQ officials and allow/require all rules to be enforced by computers and the legal system.
Corruption in the market place is allowed by those responsible for enforcing the rules.
Believe me, at the time the general viewpoint by most traders was the safe thing to do was to wait. If one could sell on Monday then one would be able to sell later in the week once the Due Bills issue was acknowledged.
At that point regulators suspended the stock, invoked the Net Capital rule to allow big players with short positions to hide their exposure off the books, and turned and told the company do anything you want to fix the issue just get the OS under the 100M authorized. Break the law. Do an illegal RS. We wont say anything. Just bury this and make our exposure/risk go away. Oh and by the way, your symbol is never going to trade again.
Respond | View Replies (2)
Posted by: Mr. Bill
In reply to: CuttinRog who wrote msg# 1828 Date: 8/18/2007 9:06:32 PM
Post #
Oh and by the way. I did the proper legal correct thing. I followed the rules and played by the rules in place.
How is it even responsible of NASDAQ officials to bring up the GVRP problem as an argument calling for them to have more authority when they still have yet to deal with the issue?
Regulators will never deal with the issue.
In a fair market place those who should be bankrupt were rewarded with huge profits. Those who should be rich had their money stolen. Plain and simple.
Now people had maybe $5K max invested in this stock. That would have been $600K+ at one point. I know of no investors who threw more than about $5K or $6K at the stock.
HateMMs had close to the most. He cashed out for $500K and still had another $300K he was trying to sell.
Respond | View Replies (1)
