Posted by: frogdreaming
In reply to: samlion who wrote msg# 25285 Date:5/3/2005 9:52:13 AM
Post #of 25318
samlion, I am amused by this part.
Funny how it is exactly opposite to the consensus opinion on why they need to provide this transparency.
In an email to Donaldson, Coulson had said “I believe that it is very important to require the disclosure of short positions because the lack of transparency is allowing promoters to defraud investors by blaming all selling on naked market maker short selling. Disclosure and transparency can easily remedy the issue.”
Apparently, the problem is NOT the short selling, but is the fraudulent gouging of investors by dumping shares and then BLAMING short sellers for the inevitable decline in the stock price due to the dilution.
Sound familiar?
regards,
frog
I was expecting Froggie to pick up on this and run with it. He didn't disappoint. He overlooks the huge number of "uncovered" naked shorts mentioned in the article with its attendant multi-billion dollar cost to promising start-ups. He doesn't comment on the many promising businesses which fell prey to this criminal activity. Instead, he places
emphasis on that paragraph he posted above. He would rather
place the blame on the companies which issue shares. Sure,
there is, of course, some rogues which are nothing but pump and dump. But I believe the majority are ernest well-meaning
individuals with great ideas for a product or service but with
little capital.
At times I've wondered if Froggie wasn't pretty accurate
in his assessment of this company. However, with so many
occasions where he does his selective excerpts from articles and posts, he removes all doubt in my mind that he is one
cold, erudite basher.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
