InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

multicellp450

04/07/09 6:51 PM

#117677 RE: mastaflash #117676

lol What?.....

"It works pretty much the same way banks operate...they 'print' more money than they have on actual deposit"...... mastaflash, nothing like that has ever remotely transpired at any bank in the u.s. EVER. The FDIC is over-exposed in deposit account insurance and the Federal Reserve prints any and all money. The individual banks neither print money nor underwrite their own account insurance.

icon url

XV19

04/07/09 7:19 PM

#117678 RE: mastaflash #117676

"TM tells me that the DTC asked him to cover FAR MORE that originally agreed too(that given in the filings). This he refused to do, as well he should. "

if this is indeed the case, why on earth does ANYONE here ever think this will EVER trade again?
icon url

kruy

04/08/09 1:40 AM

#117683 RE: mastaflash #117676

LOL, the DTC nor any other agency has ever "tried" to make TM responsible...he IS responsible..which is why he covered all known outstanding shares, naked or otherwise.

I can assure you, if any other shares are "discovered" TM will jump to cover those also.

The question is...why would an innocent man do that??
icon url

kruy

04/08/09 1:58 AM

#117684 RE: mastaflash #117676

Masta asserts: "It works pretty much the same way banks operate...they 'print' more money than they have on actual deposit"
********

You don't say?? Please tell us more about this "money printing" that banks do.

But you know what..I honestly believe that the Megas/NSS issue we are supposed to swallow works EXACTLY the same as "how banks print money".
icon url

Arkait

04/08/09 4:51 PM

#117686 RE: mastaflash #117676

I recall Megas saying that he refused to make a 1000/1 r/s,
which might be about the ratio of naked shares, perhaps?? as
implecation was he was asked to make that drastic a r/s.