One Step Ahead

[Bo14172]

I didn't misread your post, I quoted from it!

Also, in reading this post from you...http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4046879...the inference is that you think Zen's point is wrong and further, you were dimissing or discounting naked short selling as even plausible in the case of CMKX's recent trading history.

My response was not only on point to what you were inferring, but referenced with DD to back it up.

I'll state it for the third time. MM's can trade to 5 places behind the decimal. One of my purchases of CMKX (a small one) went through at .00031.

Again, when the ask was at .0001 and there was no listed bid, trades were still reported by more than a few as going through below the .0001 level. Because no one could sell at .0001 at the time, naked short selling could exist at that level. I don't care if you call it cellar boxing, the cellar winery, the flooded cellar, or midget boxing. If an MM short sold CMKX at .0001, and needed shares to cover his short position, he would simply signal that he needs shares. Another MM would create naked short shares to sell him below .0001, so that the original MM makes his profit. Those newly shorted shares can remain outstanding indefinitely. Once the MM who covered can take a short position himself when the time is right to recoup a profit as needed.

You can chose not to believe it. That's fine and truly your choice. This whole topic is merely a point of discussion. It's all about diamond recovery at this point. I've done my best to bring my arguments, proof and examples to the table to help clarify the point for all.

Be well, Bo