Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STOCKGATE, the biggest scandal to hit the markets yet!
Investigate The SEC ^ | 6-1-05 | Kevin M West

Posted on 09/03/2005 8:02:05 PM PDT by abletruth

What’s worse than Enron and Worldcom?

STOCKGATE, the biggest scandal to hit the markets yet!

By: Kevin M. West

Americans saw the television airwaves lit up this week with closure coming to the Worldcom fiasco by way of the CEO finally being held accountable for the crimes committed. Now we can finally sit back and say to ourselves “justice has prevailed and our SEC is really on top of their game”. Or can we?

The SEC has gone after Worldcom, Martha Stewart and Enron, but what about the biggest fraud in the market? Are they attempting to really go after the big guns, or is that smoke and mirrors hidden by these relatively small fish?

What could be bigger, you ask? We are happy you asked. Let us first show you a video of Senator Bob Bennett explaining this GIGANTIC hole in our market that is sucking trillions of dollars out of our country and out of investor’s pockets. Senator Bennett tells (watch the video at http://www.americaneedstoknow.com/senator_bennett.htm) SEC Chairman, William Donaldson, that the fraudulent action of naked short selling needs to be stopped! Senator Bennett explains that naked short selling is the selling of shares that haven’t been borrowed (as in the normal practice of short selling, the legal kind) and that don’t ever planned to be borrowed.

So, you ask, naked short selling is actually the selling of fake, counterfeit and non-existent shares to the investing public? Fake shares for real money, isn’t that a crime? YES, it is!

Now that you know that naked short selling it is NOT some sort of a conspiracy theory. It’s also not an excuse thought up by devastated investors looking for an explanation of why they lost their life savings through bad investments nor is it a hype used by stock promoters to have an excuse for their failing company. These are reasons that some of our tax paid government employees like Annette Nazareth (head of the SEC’s market regulation division) wants the public to believe. http://www.investigatethesec.com/DP270205.htm

Do we have your attention?

The SEC admits that naked short selling exists. They confirm this by putting Regulation SHO into effect this past January. So, for them to say it isn’t a problem is ridiculous. Of course, that regulation is so simple to get around that a child could figure out the loopholes in it. And, not only has the regulation proved worthless, but the SEC even GRANDFATHERED in these criminal acts that happened before this year! Would the Secret Service or FBI let you or I make counterfeit shares and sell them world wide on the open market and then tell us that we are forgiven from the past crimes, just don’t do it anymore…. “Please, with honey and sugar on it”. Of course not.

Why is the SEC not worried about this problem? We believe the SEC has suddenly become worried about this problem, because it can no longer be swept under the carpet. But now, the problem is so large that it could possibly bankrupt the entire market. If you thought Worldcom and Enron were huge frauds, you haven’t seen anything yet! We are talking TRILLIONS of dollars stolen from investors and businesses over the past several years. And where does this kind of money go? Not to the “Good Guys”, you can bet.

We have heard many stories of people that have lost entire savings and retirement accounts due to this atrocity. Families just like yours that have invested into good companies with brilliant ideas and products. Ideas and products that could have made this world a better place. What happened to these companies and the people that invested into them? They lost everything to a market full of fraud and corruption. Fraud and corruption so deep, it has to be protected at the highest levels. Once these businesses are bankrupted because of these crimes, the evidence vanishes with them. The criminals never have to pay and you never recover an investment that should have never gone bad.

Are there some bad companies and investments out there, sure there are. But the REAL bad companies and people are the very ones we trust to make sure our investments are safe. Trillions of our investment dollars are in the hands of crooks that are allowed to regulate their own actions. (SRO’s)

Can you imagine giving your life savings to a criminal to invest for you and let them be responsible to only themselves for taking care of your investment? Guess what, if you invest any money into the market, that’s exactly what you are doing every single day! See, the market is basically run on a merit system called an SRO or Self Regulatory Organizations. But I thought the SEC was in charge of regulation, you say. That’s funny, so did we!

Can you imagine what these unregulated, SEC protected and fearless thieves are waiting to do with trillions more dollars from social security funds that the President wants to give them? We don’t even want to think about it.

Now then, you think you may want to get your Senators and members of Congress behind Senator Bennett and get this fraud taken care of and put the REAL criminals in jail?

Stand up America, and take your country back!

Respectfully,

Kevin M. West

www.americaneedstoknow.com/stockgate.htm

Petition Status Report *Audio Clip* Bear Stearns implicates Regulators in Cover-up to protect Wall Street Fraud : 5 minutes excerpt of 1


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: brokerages; counterfeiting; dtcc; fraud; hedgefunds; offshores; sec; trillions
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last
This subject has been on Dateline, CNBC and is going to get more publicity after Senators returns. Six Senators and one Senate woman have requested answers to questions that they didn't get from William Dinaldson SEC head who strangely resigned withing a week of that meeting chaired by Senator Robert Bennett-R Utah.
1 posted on 09/03/2005 8:02:06 PM PDT by abletruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: abletruth

paranoia about things people don't undertand alert.


2 posted on 09/03/2005 8:03:56 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

all shorts are pond scum


3 posted on 09/03/2005 8:08:53 PM PDT by wrathof59 ("to the Everlasting Glory of the Infantry".........Robert A Heinlein)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: William Creel

Spitzer too will pass.


5 posted on 09/03/2005 8:12:21 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

For a minute there, I thought you were going to tell us that Global Crossing had made it to the indictment stage.


6 posted on 09/03/2005 8:15:06 PM PDT by NonValueAdded ("Freedom of speech makes it much easier to spot the idiots." [Jay Lessig, 2/7/2005])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth
"...naked short selling ..."

Traders and market makers do this all the time when they think a stock is headed down - and they get clobbered when it goes up in spite of their best efforts to drive it south!

7 posted on 09/03/2005 8:18:03 PM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

invisible I don't think you understand, the markets have 18% of all shares as FTD daily..."Failed To Delivers" so the counterfeiting is rampant, seems the only people that don't believe there is a problem work for the brokerages, we need to go totally electronic.

Watch the Congress get involved soon because there is one company that has legally proved there are over one trillion shares of it's stock floating around as markers in accounts in 64 countries....Yea that's One Trillion with 15 zeros...
abletruth


8 posted on 09/03/2005 8:18:38 PM PDT by abletruth (Liberals would Blame Bush For Their Bad Marriages...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

My first thought is that if the buyer knows that he's not getting the stock, then who cares whether the shares actually exist?

All they are doing is placing a bet on where the price is headed.

Of course, if the buyer doesn't know that the shares don't exist, then that's another matter.


9 posted on 09/03/2005 8:18:47 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

What a b.s. article. There is nothing inherently immoral in uncovered short sales by third party investors. The concerns are simply first, suitability and second, credit. Brokers already have a legal obligation to ensure that unsophisticated customers are not making trades that are unsuitable for them, which may well include short selling, depending on the circumstances. And institutions are required by margin regulations and their own prudent self-interest to make sure investors have enough assets to cough up their losses on short-selling, if they guess wrong, because the exposure in theory is limitless.


10 posted on 09/03/2005 8:23:08 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

This is Naked Shorting not Shorting, now it is just referred to as counterfeiting because that is what it is. The DTCC allows he stock borrow program but doesn't enforce the shares to be returned?
Ask some companies like Delta Airlines, Krispy Kreme, Onmi Media, Casavant Diamonds. 85% of all hedge funds are located in the Caymans...it is not for the sun and fun.
able


11 posted on 09/03/2005 8:23:29 PM PDT by abletruth (Liberals would Blame Bush For Their Bad Marriages...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth
invisible I don't think you understand, the markets have 18% of all shares as FTD daily..."Failed To Delivers" so the counterfeiting is rampant, seems the only people that don't believe there is a problem work for the brokerages, we need to go totally electronic.

all over the map here. going totally electronic, ah, yes, this is a panacea, isn't it? I've decided that's The New Utopia. Once everything is electronic, everything will be OK.

short selling is as misunderstood a subject as there is. Already on this thread there are "hang all shorts" posts, when really it seems that, if there's a problem, it's counterfeiting, which is a different animal altogether.

12 posted on 09/03/2005 8:24:22 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

invisible...I am not talking about legal short selling. I am talking about naked short selling...as you say two diffewrent animals. The proof is abundant and about to be made public.

A Statement by Bear Stearns' General Counsel Bill Philek -
By DP

On the December 13, 2004 Conference Call regarding regulation SHO, with Peter Murphy, senior managing director of the Bear Stearns Clearing Division in attendance as part of the panel (as recorded and available as audio here - requires Windows Media Player):
"To give you that brief introduction in Reg SHO, the history (of) how we got to where we are today. For the past few years we have been hearing from many different regulators regarding their concerns about the increase in the level of fails that they are seeing. They believe, and they have stated on numerous occasions, that one of the primary causes of the high level of fails was that various participants in the short sale process, prime brokers, executing brokers, clients, were not following already established rules."

Here it is, in black and white. Proof positive that the regulators are aware of violations, are concerned about the increase of violations, and know the cause, and the culprits.

This implicates the entire broker/clearing house/hedge fund network in securities violations, without enforcement actions by Regulators, who instead looked the other way. Exactly what these high level of fails and illegal short sales did to the markets will be determined in State and Federal courts across America. This also implicates the Regulators in aiding and abetting the fraud.

So for any elected officials who doubt that the NCANS take on the problem is, if anything, less alarmist than the situation deserves, I would direct you to the above statement and caution you to think long and hard as to the chronicle of abuses it confirms.

And then decide whether you are part of the problem, or part of the solution.

The source of the info below is www.ncans.net


13 posted on 09/03/2005 8:29:50 PM PDT by abletruth (Liberals would Blame Bush For Their Bad Marriages...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

Short sales are nothing new. Where's the fire?


14 posted on 09/03/2005 8:31:28 PM PDT by dervish (tagline for rent, inquire wofficialsithin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

I worked at a medium sized brokerage in Seattle in 96. One of the reps created 2 large short positons, pending delivery. Well, the client never delivered and the stocks, went up. The firm lost 15 million, fired the broker.

Story was in the papers, and in the WSJ too, if I'm not mistaken. The client was illegally selling short, but since the stock went up, didn't cover. Not sure what happened to the client, but the broker got a job at another firm, saw him recently.


15 posted on 09/03/2005 8:31:40 PM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: abletruth
UNIVERSAL EXPRESS (OTC BB:USXP.OB) won 526 million in lawsuits against naked shorters. (uncollected so far as I know).
The SEC stepped in and tried to discredit USXP.

USXP now has has a bazillion dollar lawsuit against the SEC. The SEC tried to "court shop" and got it stuck in the their neck. The suit is now in Federal Court.

What is at stake is billions of dollars in transaction fees to the SEC & DTCC.

This should be a barn-burner.
16 posted on 09/03/2005 8:32:03 PM PDT by stylin19a (In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dervish

You can sell, and you can sell short. You're only allowed to sell short on upticks and there must be borrowed shares available. Naked short selling is illegal, for good reason.


17 posted on 09/03/2005 8:33:16 PM PDT by Professional
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

I wish I could understand what you are dicussibng.

Is there any way it can be explained so am elderly person who does understand short selling or I guess buying.

I means, to me, one just bets weather a stock is going up or down, you are in reality just betting. like gambling. Please try to explain it so I will at least have a general idea.


18 posted on 09/03/2005 8:35:23 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: frannie
basically, buying a share of stock is buying a small piece of equity in the business. whether that is gambling or not depends more on your intentions and approach -- same is in real estate.

selling short means selling shares you don't own, that someone has lent you. That is generally a speculative position although one can imagine times when it would be hedging to do so. The shares must either be delivered or repurchased to close out the short position.

naked short selling means this is done without any clothes on. ha ha -- just kidding. naked short selling means that you haven't borrowed the shares you're selling short. that is fraudulent and is not a new activity.

19 posted on 09/03/2005 8:43:49 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

I Believe it = If you have a real time trade screen watch MRKL trade 10-20 million shares in a day (90 Mill) float day after day.

If you are tuned in to how stocks trade you will see a manipulated stock after watching the trades for 5 min. It trades like there is 10 billion shares float.


20 posted on 09/03/2005 8:46:45 PM PDT by underbyte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: frannie
I think the key word here is "naked" - which is apparently a special variant of regular short selling.

Short selling itself if basically the practice of borrowing someones shares, selling them, then later buying them back and returning them to the original owner. When you do this (selling before buying) you make money when the price of the stocks goes DOWN (you buy it back for less than you sold it for).

Apparently this "naked" short selling is not borrowing to begin with, but somehow counterfeiting the shares. This *must* the effect of diluting the value of the stock, and also results in much higher shorts on the stock. Since short sells are votes of 'no confidence' in the stock, any short selling must have the effect of reduducing the value of the stock.

If the value is reduce enough the company goes kaput (when it should not have). The investors lose all their money while the short sellers can raclaim the shares for probably tenths of pennies on the dollar.

That's my take on all this.

21 posted on 09/03/2005 8:48:26 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: frannie

"He that sells what isn't *his'n*, buys it back or goes to prison."
... that's how I was taught (about short selling - naked or otherwise) back in the day.


22 posted on 09/03/2005 8:55:26 PM PDT by shoptalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Professional

Naked short selling, in the sense of entering into a binding trade to sell shares which you do not at that time possess (either owned long or borrowed) is not per se illegal. Your broker will require that you have the required margin at the time the trade is entered, however. And on the settlement date your broker will need to deliver shares on your behalf to close out the trade, either by buying or borrowing them.

For many institutional investors, they are in fact prohibited or restricted by charter or regulation from many short selling activities.

The complaint here seems to have more to do with "fails" endangering the clearing system. However, clearing participants already have strict requirements regarding maintaining collateral to cover their positions. And as I mentioned before, fails as between a broker and its customer is a credit problem intended to be addressed by the margin requirements and the prudent self-interest of the broker.

"He that sells what isn't his'n,
Must buy it back or go to prison."


23 posted on 09/03/2005 9:01:42 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Thank you,

I am not dumb but 82 years of age, not old, widow and this really interested me. With no higher education or education in finance but do read articles that I don't comprehend, I appreciate your reply and it does give me a general understanding as I requested.


24 posted on 09/03/2005 9:01:53 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: shoptalk

beat me to it, shoptalk!


25 posted on 09/03/2005 9:02:20 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

Short Selling is legal and useful. But this is Naked Short Selling, the naked comes from the brokeragess that borrows the stock from an MM "market maker" they get the stock via the DTCC "Deposit Trust Clearing Corp" the DTCC is owned by the SEC and makes a very small percentage on each trade legal or illegal "That was a question William Donaldson" couldn't answer when being asked by Senator Bennett.

The problem is the stock is to be returned in 13 days...the SEC has not enforced this 13 day rule for about 6-7 years. This is getting ready to be a major problem because it used to be just small cap stocks, now it is a problem on all exchanges. Go to ncans.net or investigatethesec.com both of these sites have excellent article about what could destroy our markets if not stopped immediately.

Senator Shelby and 5 other Senators are from the senate banking committee that have expressed serious concern but one Senator Collins is the chair to Homeland Security so it is possible there is a link to terror funding as I have read in some articles. The RICO statues have been mentioned as well.
able


26 posted on 09/03/2005 9:03:26 PM PDT by abletruth (Liberals would Blame Bush For Their Bad Marriages...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NonValueAdded
GMTA

Wonder if I'll live long enough to see Global Crossing investigated and Terry McAwfull in an orange jumpsuit and shackles.

27 posted on 09/03/2005 9:04:08 PM PDT by OldFriend (MAJ. TAMMY DUCKWORTH ~ A NATIONAL TREASURE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shoptalk

I have had three replies, I understand each of them.
Yours sound like one I might have made because it is the way I think of short selling.
I really know nothing about these "modern" transactions
but it just really interests me.
You might like to know I am 82, a widow and just like to read these articles about things I don't understand.
Thank you , it was a witty and I think an informative reply.


28 posted on 09/03/2005 9:06:14 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: The Duke

Thank you. Three replies to what I felt after I asked it was a stupid question. But it really has made understandable.

All three different but informative to me.

Thanks to all of you.


29 posted on 09/03/2005 9:08:57 PM PDT by frannie (Be not afraid of tomorrow - God is already there!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
I understand short selling and this variant and both are among the most destructive forces arrayed against investors. Both should be banned.

Essentially it is the shifting of the supply curve using stocks which are almost always "borrowed" from margin investors. There is no reason a person would allow their stocks to be used to do this and it is brokers who do it without the permission of the real owners.

Other capitalist nations do not allow this blatant and fraudulent abuse of fiduciary responsibility on the part of brokers.

If these crooks want to bet against stocks let them do it in a way which does not BY ITS VERY NATURE cheat real investors, let them buy puts or sell calls.
30 posted on 09/03/2005 9:09:45 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: frannie

Frannie...Love seeing you using the web at 82 years young...

Go to www.ncans.net, www.investigatethesec.com, www.themotelyfool.com This problem if left unchecked could effect alot of people and their investments. I know I have been in some stocks that had their A/S just go up day after day when they never authoried the shares.

CMKX traded 42 billions last Dec 14, 04...they only have 703B A/S, so it is real, it is serious and it is not just the penny stocks anymore as it was when it started. Check those sites they have a lot of verified articles.
God Luck Frannie
abletruth


31 posted on 09/03/2005 9:10:40 PM PDT by abletruth (Liberals would Blame Bush For Their Bad Marriages...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wrathof59

Why? They are a needed check on the boundless enthusiasm of the stock salespeople on Wall Street.


32 posted on 09/03/2005 9:14:44 PM PDT by oblomov
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wrathof59
What nonsense. Markets go up, markets go down. What in the world is wrong with profiting when a market, in this case the shares of some company, goes down? If you happen to be an advocate of ''one-way'' mkts, which it sounds like you are, good luck to you -- no such things exist.

Now, naked short selling is not only wrong, it's a crime with multiple perpetrators. Stock shares are units of participatory ownership, unlike, say, a futures contract which is a binding commitment between two parties.

When a stock transaction occurs, there is always a buyer and always a seller, same as at the grocery store, except that the US allows 3 business days to settle the transaction, i.e. see to it that the seller gets his money and the buyer gets his shares. Naked short sales are never settled, or at least never properly. The seller may or may not receive any funds (he shouldn't, btw), but he does get what he wants, to wit, a position in the mkt. The buyer -- and naked shorts can ONLY ever occur if the buyer isn't paying attention to his account with his broker -- doesn't get squat, and may actually on occasion be paying for something he doesn't ever receive.

This is called fraud, and the perps are, in order, the naked seller, his brokerage, the clearing firm for the exchange on which the transaction was executed, and possibly sometimes also the buyer's brokerage.

Naked short selling and ''ordinary'' short selling are two entirely different animals, and you'd be well-advised to understand the difference between them.

As an aside, you **do** realise, don't you, that the NYSE couldn't even exist if all short-selling were banned?

33 posted on 09/03/2005 9:20:44 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
The bulk of the problem isn't counterfeiting, it's either laxity or incompetence (or conceivably criminality) on certain brokers' parts, coupled with less-than-adequate clearing enforcement. The clearing firms simply MUST stand up and start declaring punitive fails when some would-be sharp operator tries on a naked short.

The brokerages that tolerate this practice will get the message in -- pardon me -- a New York taxicab minute.

34 posted on 09/03/2005 9:23:34 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

I can't believe I just wasted 5 minutes of my time reading "Dr Byrne's" explanation of "naked short selling" at ncan.net

Look, the first point to understand is that the consensus of economists for a long time has been that short selling, in principle, is not an evil thing. The SEC has said as much each time it adopted or amended the "uptick rule."

Secondly, the far narrower allegation that some folks may not properly be enforcing the delivery-versus-payment rules in the margin regulations against their hedge fund customers is a matter for the SRO and SEC enforcement divisions - send them the evidence and if it holds up in enforcement proceedings, hang 'em by the yard arm, I say. Its certainly not something to gets your shorts in a knot over, if you'll pardon my pun.


35 posted on 09/03/2005 9:28:49 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
well, you use a lot of words, but I have to tell you, it's clear that you really haven't thought short selling through.

Funny thing about life. As you gain more experience, you learn that the things you thought you knew all about weren't exactly what you thought they were at all; or the things you totally disagree with, sometimes prove to be wise and reasonable after all.

36 posted on 09/03/2005 9:29:11 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
Sorry, mate, but you can't get rid of short selling w/o completely rewriting the rules of NYSE (and, here's a tip -- that ain't gonna happen until everything goes totally electronic...which will have its own set of problems). Who do you think the great majority of the shorts are, in listed stocks on a daily basis? Not every day, mind, but on any given day. It's not funds, not individuals, not banks -- it's the floor, the specialists. They're required BY RULE to make a market and complete a transaction. If -- as happens every day except big down days -- they haven't any shares on book, and a buy order comes in, doesn't matter, they MUST complete the transaction...which in this situation means ''get short''.
37 posted on 09/03/2005 9:29:58 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
consensus of economists

it really disappoints me when people cite stuff like this as a reason to hold a certain opinion.

socialized education...socialized medicine...socialized self defense, and now, socialized thought.

38 posted on 09/03/2005 9:31:45 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: abletruth
Exactly right, m'friend. Fails haven't been this bad since 1968-1969...and we all (well, us older types anyway...g!) recall what happened when SEC started clamping down on fails back then.

How many **hundred** brokerages, good names too, closed their doors, eh?

SEC, NYSE, and NASD need to, simply have to, revive punitive fails. Don't know if that's going to happen, though (sigh).

39 posted on 09/03/2005 9:32:35 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: frannie
"I have had three replies, I understand each of them."

I think you're ahead of me, frannie. Kind of got the jist here -- but the "puts" and "calls" sent me back a bit. Bonds and T-bills, that's about my speed. Never liked gambling...

40 posted on 09/03/2005 9:32:56 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: abletruth

How is this differentiated from selling derivitives?


41 posted on 09/03/2005 9:35:39 PM PDT by Texas Songwriter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn
Secondly, the far narrower allegation that some folks may not properly be enforcing the delivery-versus-payment rules in the margin regulations against their hedge fund customers is a matter for the SRO and SEC enforcement divisions - send them the evidence and if it holds up in enforcement proceedings, hang 'em by the yard arm, I say.

Take a look at the Reg. SHO lists. Fail-to-deliver's are supposed to closed out within 13 days, and companies have been on those lists for months. What do you do when the SRO's and the SEC enforcement divisions aren't doing their jobs? Wait for a catastrophe before somebody finally wakes up and does something about the problem?

Think of naked short selling as naked short writing:

Writing Naked Checks

I dropped off a check at my broker dealer to pay for my stock purchase, but asked him to not cash it.

"Don't worry", said I, "the check proves you are the beneficial owner of a block of money in my account and it is more convenient to keep the money in my account in electronic check form. I'll keep it safe for you."

My broker was insistent that he receive cash proceeds, so I told him that if he paid me a $40 handling fee and waited 4 - 6 weeks, I would pull his cash for him.

I explained to him that sometimes it isn't possible to pull the cash as there are actually more checks outstanding then cash available to honor those checks. Lucky for me, the regulators came out with a rule in January that I don't have to honor checks written before the beginning of the year as that could create financial hardship for me.

The rule tried to dissuade me from writing new bum checks - I'm supposed to put money in my account within 13 days, but I get around that by kiting checks with my buddies.

I asked him again. "Are you sure you want to pull your cash? Most of my other creditors are happy to keep my payment in electronic, check form.", but it seems he doesn't trust me and would rather he be the actual owner of the cash rather then just the beneficial owner.

For some reason, he was unhappy that some of the checks I had written were naked and were not backed by cash and he wanted to cash his first before the other creditors found out.

Folks, ask for your certificate, which proves you own your shares. In reg SHO companies, there aren't enough certs. to go around, so it will be "first come, first served".

***

There's this guy named Bob O' who is campaigning against my check writing practices. He's started a group, NCANCB, or the National Coalition Against Naked Check Buying.

He's a nut case who doesn't understand that most of the checks I don't honor are for crappy stocks that I bought. I mean if these companies were well run and well managed, I'd be happy to put up cash to back up my purchase, but it is definitely the companies' fault that people like me write bum checks to buy their shares.

I mean, if Bob O' had his way, I'd have to put up cash to honor all my checks and it would financially benefit the people I wrote those checks to.

NCANCB is all about putting money in the pockets of the naked check holders. It's all about financial benefit to them, without consideration of the hardships it might cause me.

42 posted on 09/03/2005 9:37:10 PM PDT by Retief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Texas Songwriter
Derivatives are legally binding contracts between 2 parties.

Shares represent proportional ownership in a company, something along the lines of a title to an automobile.

The two are very different.

43 posted on 09/03/2005 9:38:33 PM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Look, I'm the first to consider going against the received wisdom when there is a reasonable argument to listen to. If someone will offer a coherent explanation of why short selling, in principle (apart from credit, suitability and enforcement issues), is bad for the markets or the economy generally, I'll listen to it. I have yet to hear it made.


44 posted on 09/03/2005 9:39:48 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: wrathof59
all shorts are pond scum

I'm short 2000 barrels of crude oil. Am I pond scum ?

45 posted on 09/03/2005 9:41:33 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SirJohnBarleycorn

Short selling is necessary. But not because a concensus of economists say that it is. It's just common business sense.


46 posted on 09/03/2005 9:42:02 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
I'm short 2000 barrels of crude oil. Am I pond scum ?

you are if you spring a leak.

47 posted on 09/03/2005 9:43:00 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (we don't need no stinkin' tagline.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

You have the right screen name for this thread.


48 posted on 09/03/2005 9:45:25 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand

Hey, I like bashing the dismal scientists as much as the next guy, but economists are in fact experts in their field and we should pay some minimum amount of attention to what they say. My view of the Great Depression is essentially a failure by the powers that were to properly understand macroeconomics.


49 posted on 09/03/2005 9:46:38 PM PDT by SirJohnBarleycorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

I'm short 2000 barrels of crude oil (2 futures contracts). I guess I'm naked because I did not borrow the crude and I don't own the crude. I do put up a margin requirement.

I believe I can short the sp500 index too. I can go short 1 contract which is about 250,000 dollars worth of stock. Further, I would be naked in that I did not borrow 250,000 dollars worth of sp stocks.


50 posted on 09/03/2005 9:47:00 PM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson