![](http://investorshub.advfn.com/images/default_ih_profile2_4848.jpg?cb=0)
Tuesday, June 01, 2010 9:36:18 AM
Next, let us say the SEC is right about the OS..they verified the TAs documentation and also Mosko has a signed affidavit saying the OS is 3Billion, then why is it that they 28Million shares of Class B stock Authorized and Issued?? They, the 4 of them Mosko, Metter , Lazauskas & RME now have 2,800,000,000 votes plus the 2.5 billion of common equity which totals to 5,300,000,000 votes. Why would they need so many votes when 51% of 3 Billion would give them 1,530,000,000, majority power??? The answer...there are 6Billion naked shares.
Next, let us say in-spite of the above, Mosko is sticking to his guns claiming OS is 720 Million, then there are approximately 2.2Billion naked shares because M&M&RME have 2.8Billion votes.
So, it seems that the SEC has a done a shoddy job of investigating the share distribution. If they could trace the 300Million shares that RME got & converted to Cash and back into SPNG's bank account then why did they not get the details for the other 2Billion. Certainly, there is an imbalance in the TAs records...Olde Monmouth screwed up and I don't know the reason. Hopefully it will come to light soon!! Counting shares in the float is no easy task, even though some you think it is an easy calculation.
Here's why....please read the following quotes............
With dematerialization came major revisions to the
Uniform Commercial Code in 1977, and later in 1994. Those
revisions introduced “security entitlements” to our markets,
which took the place of direct share ownership. Strictly defined,
a security entitlement “guarantees an entitlement holder a priority securities intermediary or the security intermediary’s creditors.”Today, investors trade in securities entitlements while physical certificates are held in “fungible bulk” at the dtc."
This one is news to me but I am certainly enlightened.
Here(below)is another one that has enlightened me!!
Broker participants in dtc own a pro rata interest in
the aggregate number of shares of an issue held by
dtc. And their beneficial owners, the end customer,
owns an interest in the shares in which the brokers,
themselves, have an interest. Consequently, there are
no specific shares directly owned by either broker participants,
dtc, or the underlying beneficial owner. As
a result, the beneficial owner’s ownership cannot be
tracked to a specific share, but rather, his ownership
interest is represented as a securities entitlement at his
or her own broker dealer. Each of these beneficial
owners don’t own the actual shares that have been
credited to their account, but rather, they own a bundle
of rights defined by Federal and State law and by
their contract with the broker.
So the DTC plays a central role in the Share deposit accounting, settlement & Clearing.
Though part of the Federal Reserve System, the dtcc is collectively owned and operated by the large U.S. brokerages. As a
result, dtcc operations are technically overseen by the sec. In
fact, the dtcc operates with minimal sec oversight.
CNS In equity markets, the origin of ftds is obscured by the Continuous Net Settlement (cns) system, operated by the
nscc. The cns constantly nets stock trades among brokerdealer
accounts at the dtc. In a dematerialized world, the
cns allows trades to settle promptly and efficiently, and helps
By cloaking delivery failures in anonymity, cns opens up the settlement system to abuse and fraud. Pollack remarked in
Neither the sec nor the exchanges will disclose the names of the institutions failing to deliver on the grounds
that “fails statistics of individual firms…is proprietary information and may reflect firms’ trading strategies.” That statement seems odd; what is proprietary about data on illegal
trading activity? Moreover, how are ftddata more proprietary
than short interest data, which are reported twice monthly?
THE IMPACT OF FTDS
ftds threaten market integrity in at least three ways:
¦ They undermine corporate voting mechanisms.
¦ They damage and destroy firms.
¦ They increase the possibility of systemic collapse.
Notably, those cases focused on the actions of the brokerdealers and not their clients. For example, Goldman Sachs
Execution and Clearing was sanctioned for repeatedly accepting
clients’ faulty locates and allowing those clients to mis-mark
short trades as long (in order to avoid compliance with
Regulation sho). But the stock exchanges’ jurisdiction extends
only to member firms. Institutions and investors fall outside
that jurisdiction, but within the purview of the sec, whose
inaction therefore shields institutions and investors.
sec
The contrast between sifma and retail investors—and their
relative influence over the sec rulemaking process—reflects the
classic dispersed costs and concentrated benefits model of political
action. It is economical for broker-dealers to unite and lobby
the sec for favorable regulations. sifma meets with sec staff
regularly, both to discuss specific proposed rules and to offer
guidance on future sec actions. Retail investors, on the otherhand, are not unified and it is expensive for individuals to gatherinformation, organize, and lobby the sec as the sifma does.
A more sinister explanation is that sec investigators
political pressure and other incentives not to pursue Regulation
shocases. The gaoreport was requested by the Senate Judiciary
To get a meaningful understanding of the above quotes and the issues associated with Phanton Shares, please read the document in its entirety at the following link. It truly is amaster piece on Phantom Shares.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv31n1/v31n1-7.pdf
http://www.buyins.net/
Title of the articel is Phantom Shares.
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.