That makes perfect sense, SRSR being a perfect part of the most perfect of perfect worlds. Right, Dr. Pangloss ?
"I have never seen a broker dealer fined regarding any short selling fines or actions for in regards to trading activity in Sarissa."
Nor would you ever see that "in regards to trading activity in Sarissa"... not because it hasn't happened, but, because in each instance in which it has occurred, the regulators, first, have never disclosed what companies the trades addressed, and, then, even after FINING them for doing it, they were oddly incurious about "fixing it" in terms of requiring any "corrections of the charts" and the share accounting ?
Apparently, the practice is not nearly as unusual as it has been made to appear in the discussions of it I've seen. So, say, pick UBSS, who we know were "caught red handed" by the regulators, recently, before being slapped on the wrist, and let go... and then, an easy question to ask might be... HOW MANY TIMES... ??? We can't answer "how many times have they done it"... but, we can answer "how many times have they been caught" doing it under the SEC's catch and release program ?
Have they been caught... once ? Or, multiple times ? What's the additional penalty levied for being a serial offender ? Is there ever a point at which the serial perpetrators routine practice of market fraud warrants more than "another fine" ?
Among other impacts it has, the fraud inherent in every mis-marked trade... tells a lie on the charts ? And, it's not just SRSR... as we know it HAS occurred, but no one knows WHERE it has occurred... because the regulators are helping the perpetrators hide their tracks... not once having disclosed WHICH stocks were effected by it, so, which investors were being defrauded ? Very odd behavior. In fact... that's behavior that is itself criminal.
"Just because UBS was fined for actions in a certain instance doesn't mean that you can extrapolate that limited occurrence into a fact."
That's true... or, it would be if the issue were actually an "isolated incident". But, even a cursory review of the public history of regulatory actions proves that this isn't a "one off" sort of an event... rather than a fairly routine market operation. The same perpetrators get caught, over and over, pay the fines... and then go right back to it... changing little other than the addresses they use to route trades through. I guess it would be unseemly if the serial offenders got caught using the same office, over and over, but, the same company getting caught repeatedly while routing trades through different offices... ? Hey, no problem...
Alan C's perspective seems it is MORE correct... as it seems he's closer to "how the market does work"... and doesn't have his head in the sand the way many others do.
I think SRSR probably isn't overly "unique" in terms of its interface with the markets... which still requires that to understand how the market works... you need to know what "typical" actually IS ? Denying the extent of the criminal behavior that IS APPARENT... if you look ?
Alan C doesn't appear to be disagreeing with anyone by claiming SRSR is some wild outlier that is being "uniquely" attacked and disadvantaged by the scale of the wrongdoing that is occurring... even more in relation to mining companies than others. Rather, it appears he's agreeing that SRSR's experience is all too typical... with the division occurring only between what those who've really looked at the problems understand "typical" to be... versus those who've NOT looked at the problems, who (wrongly) assume things are just fine unless specifically proven otherwise...
I can't imagine anyone approaching any investment assuming "everything is good unless proven otherwise"... so, I don't understand why anyone would apply that same myopia in addressing other risks in the market than the company specific variety ?
As far as the "evidence in SRSR's case"... on this subject, I've not seen any "evidence" being presented here... by anyone... other than Alan C ?
So, which evidence is it you're relying on in saying "you're making a leap that isn't supported by the evidence" ? Or, are you assuming that position is valid without needing evidence to defend it... as we all know that we can fully trust other market participants to be honest and fair in their dealings ? LOL!!!
Alan C isn't "making a leap"... rather, it is more of a leap to think that SRSR trades in a bubble that insulates it from all the crap that IS happening in the markets, generally, and as a matter of routine.
To be more specific... IF it is true that SRSR had trades that were wrongly and knowingly mis-marked... that WOULD mean that SRSR investors were being knowingly harmed by that purposeful bit of wrongdoing... and being harmed again by the effort made that had that wrongdoing being covered-up. Perhaps that sort of wrongdoing is why SRSR trades for $0.02 instead of $0.35 now... thus undervaluing your own holding by more than 15 times ?
So, IF it were true that SRSR had trades that were wrongly and knowingly mis-marked... and SRSR investors rights were violated as a result... how would you ever know ?
Even if the wrongdoing were caught... and punished... how would you ever know that YOU were harmed by it ?
We DO know that exactly that wrongdoing HAS occurred... so, show me which investors it was that were harmed by it ?
.JPG)
