InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

virginian

10/16/07 9:33 AM

#11160 RE: material evidence #11159

Unless they circumvented the Reg Sho rules then yes.
As these people did.

y Carol S. Remond

A Dow Jones Newswires Column

Struggling Internet retailer Overstock.com Inc. (OSTK) just got some new

ammunition in its quixotic fight against short-sellers, those investors who bet

against a company.

Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company

sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades

surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against

Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.

While SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive

conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne

and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against

short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.


Arenstein and SBA, without admitting or denying liability, agreed to disgorge

$1.4 million in trading profits and pay a $3.6 million fine. Arenstein also

consented to a five-year ban.

Overstock isn't named in the regulatory decision against Arenstein and SBA,

but an example of their trading activities included in the document provides

tantalizing clues that company ABCD with Dec 45 calls at $3.70, Dec 45 puts at

$6.40 and a stock price of $43.70 a share is in fact Salt Lake City-based

Overstock.

Arenstein's brother Brian Arenstein and his firm ALA Trading LLC also

separately settled, without admitting or denying liability, similar charges and

agreed to disgorge $1.8 million in trading profits and pay a $1.2 million fine

for trading between Nov. 16 and Dec. 17, 2006. Brian Arenstein also agreed to a

five-year ban. In Brian's case, the example provided by AMEX indicates that he

was improperly selling short NYSE Euronext (NYX).


A lawyer for the Arensteins declined to comment. Those were the largest fines

ever levied by AMEX. AMEX said in a press release that the improper trading was

detected and investigated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, or

FINRA.


AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms violated the so-called Reg SHO,

a regulation enacted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2005 to

modernize short-selling rules and address failures to deliver stock on

settlement date. The firms had no customer and only traded for their own

accounts.

Under Reg SHO, exchanges provide daily lists of securities with large amounts

of failure to deliver. Once a security gets on one of these threshold lists, it

becomes harder and more expansive to short the stock. The SEC recently decided

to strengthen its rules by doing away with a clause that "grandfathered"

pre-existing failures to deliver into the system.

The SEC is also considering eliminating some exemptions contained in Reg SHO,

including one that allows options market makers providing liquidity to the

market to avoid having to locate stock prior to selling the underlying equity

short.

The regulatory decisions against Scott and Brian Arenstein show that they

failed to meet requirements to be classified as a market maker. In both cases,

AMEX found that the Arensteins and their firms effected a number of complex

synthetic transactions to circumvent the delivery requirements of Reg SHO. The

exchange found that to avoid buy-ins that would have forced them to close out

transactions after they failed to deliver stock on time, the firms executed

one-day Flex option transactions, in effect resetting the clock on their failed

trades.

In a short sale, a security not owned by the seller is sold in anticipation of

a decrease in the stock price. Under Reg SHO, brokers who fail to deliver a

security for 13 consecutive settlement days have to execute mandatory buy-in to

clean the fails.

Overstock is one of a handful of companies under regulatory scrutiny that over

the last two years have launched massive legal and public relations campaigns

against bearish hedge funds and research firms. Overstock's CEO Byrne claims

that the entire financial system is bent against his company and others and that

failures to deliver are so pervasive that the entire system is in danger of

collapsing. While acknowledging that failures to deliver must be addressed and

cleaned up, securities regulators insist that the problem is minimal.

Byrne started a very vocal crusade against short sellers in late 2004 after

his company's performance and stock price started to take a turn for the worse.

The SEC began an informal inquiry into Overstock in 2005. The Commission also

looked into Overstock's claims that its stock price had been manipulated by

short sellers and a research firm called Gradient Analytics Inc. But the SEC

said in February that it had closed its probe into Gradient without bringing

charges against the Arizona research firm.

Meanwhile, a lawsuit brought by Overstock against hedge fund Rocker Partners

LP and Gradient is ongoing in California state court. The company is also suing

a group of brokerage firms in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco

County, alleging that the brokers participated in a massive illegal stock market

manipulation scheme involving illegal short selling.

Reg SHO's threshold lists gave investors a new criterion by which to gauge the

value of a company's stock when they first appeared in late 2004. Once a stock

gets on one of these lists, it becomes harder to borrow and short and resulting

forced buy-ins of short positions can lead to stock appreciation.

But those lists had a particularly drastic impact in the options market where

put options for hard to borrow stocks started trading at a premium to call

options because of higher borrowing costs and the risk of buy-ins.

In those two cases, Scott and Brian Arenstein were essentially trying to

capture that premium without baring any of the added risk.

A call option provides the holder the right to purchase the underlying stock

at a specified price, while a put option gives him the right to sell the stock

at a specified price.

(Carol S. Remond is an award-winning columnist who won a Gerald Loeb Award in

2005 for best news service content with "Exposing Small-Cap fraud," a series of

articles that described how three small companies unscrupulously pumped up their

stocks.)

-By Carol S. Remond, Dow Jones Newswires; 303-997-5783;
icon url

flaflyersfan

10/16/07 11:16 AM

#11164 RE: material evidence #11159

material evidence, the Naked Short Urban Legend is about to end;

USXP along with PCBM and Gabor S. Acs were IMO instrumental in creating the Fairy Tale that the reason why stocks were going down is because somehow people were making their own shares and they were somehow not going through the market as trades yet made stocks decline. If the argument NOW is that since the Grandfather Clause has revealed all of the "Naked Shorts" that need to be closed out; there are still unmeasurable unregulated secret Naked Shorts that are outside of the realm of the Grandfather Clause and all regulatory agencies.

If so, they are either a figment of hopeful "Longs" imaginations or will now and forever be untouchable as they cannot be measured or regulated.

Those who have always screamed loudest about how corrupt the markets are and how the common investor cannot win yet still put their $$$ in a no-win situation simply need to look in the mirror.

Good luck.