NASDAQ DID IT AGAIN: SHO list contains CTKH. Now we know this is at least two errors.
1. The short position was because they used the regdex share count.
2. CTKH shouldn't be on the list anyway because it's not registered so it doesn't count as a real stock. Or something like that. (So you don't have to use real money to buy it???)
At any rate given all these continuing errors indicating a continued ambivalence about our financial well being maybe someone could call over there and straighten them out. They obviously don't pay much attention to the common folk. Maybe one of the traders around these parts can get them to clean up their act.
Stakddek
PS: As Orangeman pointed out in quoting Roundmots post from RB:
+++++++++++++++++++++
Posted by: Orangeman3
In reply to: brg88tx who wrote msg# 3093 Date:4/18/2005 10:01:38 AM
Post #of 3112
brgtx88 Forgot one more thing Forget about CTKH being on the SHO list means nothing as far as the PPS goes. Plenty of clueless investors who think that means so much. First of all CTKH is not even registered plus l will repost what round said finally one of his better posts. Here is another example LENF made the SHO list when the stock was $5.05 last week when it was removed from the list $3.15 and thats a BB company. The same people making a big deal about the SHO list and they see they are clueless are the same ones saying the SEC is not doing there job. Here is that repost
By: roundmot_2
18 Apr 2005, 01:39 AM EDT
Msg. 137323 of 137338
(This msg. is a reply to 137304 by end2war.)
Jump to msg. #
end2war - Actually I found out from the NASD that CTKH has been naked shorted but apparently only in the sense that the MMs have sold unauthorized shares to keep the market fluid. But even then, it appears that they were not using the 4.7 billion share O/S to calculate the percentage of naked shorts.
According to the NASD rep I spoke to, the company was included on the SHO list by mistake (the are not a registered company and therefore should not have been on the list, even if they were naked shorted more than .5% of the O/S). But I also found out that they did not calculate the naked shorting as .5% of the actual O/S of 4.7 billion, but rather .5% of the total shares included in the RegDEx filings. That means that even if there has been naked short trading of this stock, it is a total of only ten thousand shares or so, not hundreds of millions. Therefore, I suggest that it is a non-issue. JMHO of course.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
AI
