Of Course Naked Short Selling is a Myth.
If it were done in the open and not hidden, it would be illegal! Right? So here we go again! Yesterday’s daily FTD report showed 69.8% FTDs!
FINRA shows 69.8% of the trading yesterday was not held in MMs' inventory, "borrowed" against existing shareholder margin accounts, borrowed from other MMs, or pre-located.
Here's a fact, not opinion: FINRA reported 1,182,441 FTDs out a total of 1,693,577 shares traded on Tuesday.
No one believed xxxxxxxxx was Naked Shorted and manipulated until someone didn't take the time to redact a few emails obtained after the case was thrown out on a technicality in a California court (the naked shorting didn't occur in California). I guess I can't name the company, but it's out there in the public domain, so look it up!
One document obtained had a Merrill President e-mail: "F*@# the compliance area, procedures schemcedures."
Regarding stock borrows, another had a Goldman e-mail that acknowledged that a lot of xxxxxxxxx company's increasing stocks were "trading at negative rebate with non-paying customers," the exact definition of a naked short to those whose business is making a market.
The court motion said that, in many instances, bankers referred to the stock as the "enemy" and planned on "neutralizing" and "failing" the stock. They also explicitly told their clients they would allow them to do the same.
So what is the exact definition of a naked short? The case alleged that fails created six times the supply of xxxxxxxxx stock.
Did the SEC ever step in to stop this activity? Of course xxxxxxxxx was a long time ago, but the case is being continued. No one circumvents the trading regulations anymore! wink, wink, wink ... REG SHO fixed all that. Ask the SEC, they'll tell you...lol What the case shows it that it is time consuming and expensive for any company to bring a NSS case through the legal system.
It's strange that bi-weekly OTC reports show that the average time to cover FTDs is only one day, year after year with MDMN, and that the "actual" short position is negligible on these same reports. Do wash trades among MMs count as legitimate "borrowing" when "erasing" an FTD? From what I've observed, many times when the FTDs are high, trading volume the next few days is not sufficient to legitimately cover these short trades. My question is how'd they do that? When and where did these FTDs go when there was no volume to cover? Why don't the numbers add up?
Funny that shares were "located" so easily. Just askin' - food for thought.
Why did the scrutineer's reported shares represented at the shareholders meeting far exceed the total number of shares issued?
Longs know what they own, and are still accumulating on DIPS, despite the frustration of delays. Once the news of the funding announcement is made, whether a short exists or not, will be of little or no consequence. This will be a value play on the the mineable mineral wealth of the ADL (and LDM) and shareholders will benefit greatly by the completed deal and drilling results.
If You're In, You're In
Invested In the Mountain
... and That's What Counts!
easy
AI
