posted
We need heavy buying pressure to create a squeeze. Is anyone in good with Shakerz. Normally I would want him to stay far away from my stocks, but in this case if he was to play CSHD, they would create the buying pressure needed for the squeeze. Just an idea.
quote:Originally posted by cassity: We need heavy buying pressure to create a squeeze. Is anyone in good with Shakerz. Normally I would want him to stay far away from my stocks, but in this case if he was to play CSHD, they would create the buying pressure needed for the squeeze. Just an idea.
Oh boy... looking for outside buying pressure to create a squeeze.... kinda like "artificial OJ".
"This is the end, my only friend... " - The Doors.
-------------------- Stick with Repo's plan in '07 - FRPT/DKAM!
IP: Logged |
posted
Getting all the ducks in a row - crossing all the T's - dotting all the I's .... Then BBBAAAMMM throw the hammer down and watch shorty sqirm.
IP: Logged |
posted
What are you nuts? NO....that would only create a huge panic sell when he sold off....just let it be...and see what happens AFTER the reset...the PPS at this moment don't mean Jack!
quote:Originally posted by cassity: We need heavy buying pressure to create a squeeze. Is anyone in good with Shakerz. Normally I would want him to stay far away from my stocks, but in this case if he was to play CSHD, they would create the buying pressure needed for the squeeze. Just an idea.
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
that is kinda funny...because really...no matter how much he or anyone like him bought...when they sell it, then they will have buyers immediately...
the fault with something like this is that i believe dog and his buddy have already played like this...and the MM's just bleed off the sale hiding the actual trans figure...
IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't been able to read it I think Purl Gurl posted it at Ihub. If it's the one she posted it's about NITE strong objections to changes in the shorting rules.
September 20,2006 Nancy M. Morris Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission 100F. Street, NE Washington, DC 20549-9303 Re: Release No. 34-54154; File Number S7-12-06 Proposed Amendments to Regulation SHO Dear Ms. Morris: Knight Capital Group, Inc. night")' welcomes the opportunity to offer our comments lo the Securities and Exchange Commission ("Commission") on the proposed amendments to Regulation SHO.~The proposed amendments seek to: (i) eliminate the grandfather provision for fails; (ii) modify the options market maker exemption for closing out fails; and (iii) address the unwinding index arbitrage positions. The Cominission also requests comment on a number of additional questions. Since our business will be impacted directly by the proposal relating to the elimination of the grandfather provision, we will focus most of our comments on that issue. Proposed elimination of the grandfather provision The Co~nmission proposes to eliminate the grandfather clause of Rule 203(b)(3)(i). This rule generally exempts fails to deliver that existed prior to the security becoining a threshold security. The new amendment would require that all grandfathered fails be closed-out within 35 settlement days from the effective date of the amendment and if a security becomes a threshold security after the effective date, all fails would need to be closed out within 13 consecutive settlement days. We respectfully oppose such a change.
IP: Logged |
posted
Knight wants more time to cover his shorts than what the SEC allows...or is thinking of allowing...(for all stocks..)...it has to do with that Grandfather clause...
posted
"There may be legitimate reasons for a failure to deliver ....For examplc, market makers who sell short thinly traded, illiquid stock in resoonse to customer demand mav encounter dilficulty in obtainine securities when the time for delivery arrives."
No Chit Cherlock! that is why they call it a squeeze and the price goes up... giving hard working, blood and sweat investors a decent price to sell them back to ya at!
They short it and the bottom falls out, then when they cover the top should blow off! Duh.
quote:Originally posted by Chartwalker: So in other words NITE only wants to cover shares that are naked once it's hits the SHO list?!!!
So what the F happens to all the other shares BEFORE that, that gots a stock TOO the SHO list in the first place?!!!!
That POS!!
Not only that... if you reread it they want a longer phased in approach to the SHO List which means they would have more time to short the stock before it is flagged. POS that is what it is P.O.S.
I just got off the phone with the Restricted Stock Group at Fidelity to check on the SHO for 15,000 shares of CSHD I sold on the 15th. The answer: The transfer agent had rejected the request for covering the restricted shares.
Fidelity is requesting a reason the the rejection but this potentially mean that I will have to buy 15,000 shares at market price to cover those 15,000 sold on the 15th. More to come....
Whoah! Thats a lot of reading....im gonna have to check that out when i get home. Im kind of expecting to see a letter very similar to BB's in that list!
IP: Logged |
"Thus, if the stock is not a threshold security the day the market maker sells short to an investor, but becomes a threshold security shortly thereafter, the risk incurred by the market maker on the day it went short will exponentially increase -since, the market maker can no longer manage its exit point on the position and will now be forced to close that position within 13 consecutive settlement days. In effect, a new and substantial risk will be applied retroactively to a market making decision made in the past. So, through no fault of its own, the market maker is now forced into a potentially precarious -and costly, position."
posted
I sure would like to know where the brokers responsiblity lies in all of this...IF the broker recieves a FTD...shouldn't that broker notify the "shareholder" imediately? I don't quite get how all of this works... When i called the TA..that gal told me that "i do not have any shares registered in my name"...the shares that "I own" are actually suppose to be "registered" with the TA under my brokers name..ie..etrade, choice, which ever... So..let's say that Etrade only has 1M of these shares...BUT they have clients that "own" 5M of these shares...I go to sell...can etrade tell me that I don't really have the shares and I have to cover because I sold these shares...even though etrade never informed me of a FTD? What responsiblity does etrade or what ever broker have to me that covers my butt? At the end of the day if etrade didn't get my shares...then they should inform me...right? Do they have the right to leave these fake shares appearing in my portfolio and I think that I have them and then when I sell etrade comes back to me and says..."umm, well, actually...."?
quote:Originally posted by Chartwalker: FROM HSM:
I just got off the phone with the Restricted Stock Group at Fidelity to check on the SHO for 15,000 shares of CSHD I sold on the 15th. The answer: The transfer agent had rejected the request for covering the restricted shares.
Fidelity is requesting a reason the the rejection but this potentially mean that I will have to buy 15,000 shares at market price to cover those 15,000 sold on the 15th. More to come....
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards!
IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, I think I will start lobbying for an exchange where computers to do all the trading. Greed just makes criminals aout of everyone.
It is like everyone is saying, "I justify my position by explaining how much money I would lose if my loop holes were gone. I really need my loop holes."
My opinion the grandfather clause should have never have been included in the first place. Shorts should have to cover no matter what. And if this rule passes 13 days after it goes into effect I hope all are in on each and every security on the SHO list showing threshold readched. Let the squeeze begin.
quote:Originally posted by Chartwalker: But it's OK for US to hold THEIR bag!!
POS! I'm PISSED!!
Yea, basically they are saying that you, the every day investor, MUST know as much about investing as the market makers or they will take advantage of you given the opportunity AND are looking for the SEC to allow such rape. At least thats how i understand it.
IP: Logged |
posted
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 10of13: [QB] I sure would like to know where the brokers responsiblity lies in all of this...IF the broker recieves a FTD...shouldn't that broker notify the "shareholder" imediately? I don't quite get how all of this works... When i called the TA..that gal told me that "i do not have any shares registered in my name"...the shares that "I own" are actually suppose to be "registered" with the TA under my brokers name..ie..etrade, choice, which ever... So..let's say that Etrade only has 1M of these shares...BUT they have clients that "own" 5M of these shares...I go to sell...can etrade tell me that I don't really have the shares and I have to cover because I sold these shares...even though etrade never informed me of a FTD? What responsiblity does etrade or what ever broker have to me that covers my butt? At the end of the day if etrade didn't get my shares...then they should inform me...right? Do they have the right to leave these fake shares appearing in my portfolio and I think that I have them and then when I sell etrade comes back to me and says..."umm, well, actually...."?
quote:Originally posted by 10of13: I sure would like to know where the brokers responsiblity lies in all of this...IF the broker recieves a FTD...shouldn't that broker notify the "shareholder" imediately? I don't quite get how all of this works... When i called the TA..that gal told me that "i do not have any shares registered in my name"...the shares that "I own" are actually suppose to be "registered" with the TA under my brokers name..ie..etrade, choice, which ever... So..let's say that Etrade only has 1M of these shares...BUT they have clients that "own" 5M of these shares...I go to sell...can etrade tell me that I don't really have the shares and I have to cover because I sold these shares...even though etrade never informed me of a FTD? What responsiblity does etrade or what ever broker have to me that covers my butt? At the end of the day if etrade didn't get my shares...then they should inform me...right? Do they have the right to leave these fake shares appearing in my portfolio and I think that I have them and then when I sell etrade comes back to me and says..."umm, well, actually...."?
quote:Originally posted by Chartwalker: FROM HSM:
I just got off the phone with the Restricted Stock Group at Fidelity to check on the SHO for 15,000 shares of CSHD I sold on the 15th. The answer: The transfer agent had rejected the request for covering the restricted shares.
Fidelity is requesting a reason the the rejection but this potentially mean that I will have to buy 15,000 shares at market price to cover those 15,000 sold on the 15th. More to come....
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
that's not greedy is it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
