quote:Originally posted by driver4t3: tencentmint, the E should be off in the morning, so I will definatly be right here at the computer in the when the bell rings, just dont want to cross the wires at my brokers, however, I had a boatload of shares from .089 then last week, rufus gave us 6 more boatloads, a very nice gift, just going to ad 1 or 2 more boatloads, if I have time,i'll try the strategy..
You got in at .089?? Man you rock! That was good fore sight to able to see this coming. Any hunch's what its going to climb to? Yea, I know its speculation, but to get on board at 9 cents means you are doing something right.
Hey, what do you drive? You're not that NY cabby that day trades on his tips are you? Scariest ride I ever took.
-------------------- The safest way to double your money is to fold it over and put it in your pocket. Posts: 40 | From: California | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: [QB] Rburnout = Rstreet ....It's so obvious, man, come on!!!! I find it peculiar how you only show up here in the wee hours of the night - Is that because where you are it's day time. Why don't you come to our side of the pond I hear some feds hear have a nice orange jumpsuit for you (it used to belong to Martha Stewart!)
Well, good mornin' li'l lady....The sun is peekin' in my window. Unfortunately, a customer has a rush job we have to go do. Hopefully, I'll be back home in time to catch the second half of the Hawks beating the Vikings..... Work also beckoned all day yesterday, so I missed another thrilling UW loss...
You get a D for perceptivity skills.....
Me, a B for my cut/paste abilities....
Good luck with your investing.....you're gonna need it.
Posts: 36 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok this may be a little out of place.. but is there anyway to go against the market makers?
Say you have two brokerage accounts.. any way to specify what shares you buy and sell..
IE in one account put your shares for sale at 2.00.. buy them with your other account.. sell them again on that account at 2.10.. buy them with the first account.. put them up for sale again at 2.20.. etc. and hope that the ask and bid of others will follow your lead.
I dont know if this is just silly thinking or illegal, but isnt this what they are doing now, just in a downward fashion?
Posts: 869 | From: Az | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The way that I play with the MM's is I dance their dance...if they buy I buy if they're selling I sell... You aren't going to beat them period...If the market as a whole changes wonderful...but in no way is 1 little penny investor going to even put a small ding in the MM's...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TimW: Ok this may be a little out of place.. but is there anyway to go against the market makers?
Say you have two brokerage accounts.. any way to specify what shares you buy and sell..
IE in one account put your shares for sale at 2.00.. buy them with your other account.. sell them again on that account at 2.10.. buy them with the first account.. put them up for sale again at 2.20.. etc. and hope that the ask and bid of others will follow your lead.
I dont know if this is just silly thinking or illegal, but isnt this what they are doing now, just in a downward fashion?
Great Idea. Lets try it. I will sell you my shares of GTEL then I promise to buy them back!! LOL!
-------------------- The safest way to double your money is to fold it over and put it in your pocket. Posts: 40 | From: California | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
rburnout...I don't mind your posts...yeah they seem a little negative...but if there are questions that need clearing up or answered...this may be the best place for it...
However, keep in mind that this particular play...is not normal..nothing has been black and white...so don't think the answers to your questions will be so cut and dry...
-------------------- #1 Rule: Protect your capital! #2 Rule: Never fall for the BS on the boards! Posts: 8890 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TimW: Ok this may be a little out of place.. but is there anyway to go against the market makers?
Say you have two brokerage accounts.. any way to specify what shares you buy and sell..
IE in one account put your shares for sale at 2.00.. buy them with your other account.. sell them again on that account at 2.10.. buy them with the first account.. put them up for sale again at 2.20.. etc. and hope that the ask and bid of others will follow your lead.
I dont know if this is just silly thinking or illegal, but isnt this what they are doing now, just in a downward fashion?
Great Idea. Lets try it. I will sell you my shares of GTEL then I promise to buy them back!! LOL!
hehehe gtel, my very first lesson in stocks, bought before the split, watched it go up, weathered the split, and watched it go down. man what a plsser, but learned a lot.
Posts: 572 | From: usa | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey guys just found this. I don't know if it's been covered yet or not. It's about the issuance of shares from Nasdaq's view. LIke rufus said he doesn't have to get permission from Nasdaq he just has to let them know.
.I Issuing any common stock (or security convertible into common stock) in connection with the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company, if any officer or director or substantial shareholder of the issuer has a 5% or greater interest (or if such persons collectively have a 10% or greater interest) in the company to be acquired or in the considerations to be paid; or • Entering into a transaction that may result in the potential issuance of common stock (or securities convertible into common stock) greater than 10% of either the TSO or the voting power outstanding on a pre-transaction basis;
After just reading this quickly. it seems that they can issue shares to reduce a former officer or directors ownership in the new co. I might be reading to much into this. Here's the link to the whole thing it's on page 12
quote:Originally posted by cbbush: Thanks bilgert. That's what I wanted to hear -- cautious optimism, because what I copied from investopedia (I believe that's right) could be true here. We can't be too careful, can we? I own shares and have made a decision to hold because I can afford the loss, but I will not bash anyone who says I have a substantial risk. I do, you do and we all do, but we will cheer for our team regardless. Those who bash are not as confident in their positions as we are or can afford to lose the money. Opinions on DD will differ, and we can agree to disagree in a civil manner. I haven't jumped on the front car but I'm on the roller coaster for the ride.
"On the other hand, it's tough to deny that short selling makes an important contribution to the market. It provides liquidity, drives down overpriced securities, and generally increases the efficiency of the markets. Short sellers are often the first line of defense against financial fraud. While the conflicts of interest from investment banking keeps some analysts from giving completely unbiased research, work from short sellers is often regarded as being some of the most detailed and highest quality research in the market. Its been said that short sellers actually prevent crashes because they provide a voice of reason during raging bull markets...
This is the mirror version of the "pump and dump," where crooks buy stock (take a long position) and issue false information that causes the target stock's price to increase."
Regular short selling of a stock (usaully stocks over $4-5) I agree with you, but in pennyland there is NO PLACE for it. The "average guy CAN'T AFFORD to do it (you need $2.50 PER share PLUS commissions). And Naked Short selling is Criminal... "Who wants to buy air? Who wants the dilution? Who wants to see buying pressure soaked up by air instead of REAL investors buying and selling? (!!)
-And I don't buy the argument of "creating liquidity" -if they need shares, raise the PPS! They'll have all the shares they want, -will they not?
That is why some big markets overseas are starting to go to a "straight through" market, (I believe Wally posted an article about that) the US will have to follow IMO, otherwise we would pollute their CLEAN system with this crap we've been dealing with now for MONTHS with CSHD, -Naked Shorting.
Regular short selling, -agreed, needed and healthy, in pennyland it has become a cancer, making GOOD companies go bust. If the little guy can't do it how is it fair market?? Seems like common sense doesn't it.....
And NAKED SHORT SELLING, -the selling of "air" it just plain wrong at ANY level IMO!
Anyone can quote me on that all day long. There's no telling where our PPS would be right now if we were in a "fair market!"
CCbush, I don't care for how the markets are "run" -so I'm all for cleaning up this Rich man's cesspool, and I'm PRAYING that Rufus can help, or do something new with CSHD.
In fact he has already, more and more Companies are getting NOBO list's and talking openly about this problem. So like it or not Rufus has effected the market place, maybe just a dip in the pond, -but no telling where those little waves end up going
dog... Thanks for taking the time to set up the beginning of the board, that was needed anyway IMO cause we are at a crossroads. Many Newbs are wondering if they should get in after the 6 for 1 share "giveaway" and I think the facts everyone provided should allow them to see that we have at LEAST a 50/50 shot at something very big with CSHD.
No pumps, invest what you are comfortable with and let's see what happens. We need the next piece of the puzzle now from Rufus, we seem to have taken any DD to the limits of "if's" now.
Nothing's in stone from here, no example to compare, --but that in itself is more proof that Rufus perhaps really is "Doing something that has never been done before."
I am writing in reference to the email you sent dated September 21, 2006 regarding the Depository Trust Company (DTC) vs. Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner (NOBO) lists from Conversion Solutions (CSHD). After reviewing your email along with the DTC vs. NOBO lists at CSHD's website, www.cvsu.us, and speaking to Scottrade associates from our Risk Management and Stock Records teams, I have reported my findings below.
According to our records, as of October 2, 2006, you have XXXXX shares of CSHD in your account, which is in a good and deliverable form at the DTC.
Unfortunately there has been some confusion about the information displayed on the CSHD website. The correct information about CSHD and Scottrade clients is provided in the DTC list, which states as of September 19, 2006 Scottrade had 5,203,265 shares of CSHD registered at the DTC. Please note, since CSHD is a Bulletin Board stock, Scottrade does not have any short positions in this security.
Scottrade would like to thank you for your inquiry as we appreciate your business and value your concerns as a customer. If you should ever need additional assistance please don't hesitate to call your local branch at 920-738-4540 or toll-free at 877-500-1980.
quote:Originally posted by cbbush: I agree tencentmint. Now we are talking rationally.
It would have been nice if you had read through the threads that came before the last 2. From very early on this has been the one board that has preached caution and protecting of ones capital. I will have a very difficult time answering any of your futures posts.
"Your testing of the waters" was disingeuous at best. Your talk of attempting to manipulate the stock borders on criminal conspiracy. You have shown your true colors and derailed the true discussion of this stock.
GLTA Wally
Posts: 3255 | From: Los Angeles California | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cbbush: I agree tencentmint. Now we are talking rationally.
It would have been nice if you had read through the threads that came before the last 2. From very early on this has been the one board that has preached caution and protecting of ones capital. I will have a very difficult time answering any of your futures posts.
"Your testing of the waters" was disingeuous at best. Your talk of attempting to manipulate the stock borders on criminal conspiracy. You have shown your true colors and derailed the true discussion of this stock.
GLTA Wally
derailing good due dilligence has been the main goal of the shorts all along...
i repeat my asssertion that i have seen many lies by the negative posters on this stock..
there has been a constant assualt on this stock since mid-july... funny? i look at the charts? and they tell a differnt story...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I am writing in reference to the email you sent dated September 21, 2006 regarding the Depository Trust Company (DTC) vs. Non-Objecting Beneficial Owner (NOBO) lists from Conversion Solutions (CSHD). After reviewing your email along with the DTC vs. NOBO lists at CSHD's website, www.cvsu.us, and speaking to Scottrade associates from our Risk Management and Stock Records teams, I have reported my findings below.
According to our records, as of October 2, 2006, you have XXXXX shares of CSHD in your account, which is in a good and deliverable form at the DTC.
Unfortunately there has been some confusion about the information displayed on the CSHD website. The correct information about CSHD and Scottrade clients is provided in the DTC list, which states as of September 19, 2006 Scottrade had 5,203,265 shares of CSHD registered at the DTC. Please note, since CSHD is a Bulletin Board stock, Scottrade does not have any short positions in this security.
Scottrade would like to thank you for your inquiry as we appreciate your business and value your concerns as a customer. If you should ever need additional assistance please don't hesitate to call your local branch at 920-738-4540 or toll-free at 877-500-1980.
Sincerely,
Kevin E. Gaylord Compliance Examiner
cc: Jeremy Kittoe, Branch Manager
Should have emphasized NAKED SHORT instead of just short..
-------------------- lostone Posts: 2666 | From: san jose,ca usa | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did I really get it wrong or did I get the person right but the country wrong?
Anyway, honestly, just wondering do you hold a position with CSHD? It's quite obvious I do, just wondering if you do... Good Luck in whatever stock you have....I think you'll need it too...
quote:Originally posted by rburnout:
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: [QB] Rburnout = Rstreet ....It's so obvious, man, come on!!!! I find it peculiar how you only show up here in the wee hours of the night - Is that because where you are it's day time. Why don't you come to our side of the pond I hear some feds hear have a nice orange jumpsuit for you (it used to belong to Martha Stewart!)
Well, good mornin' li'l lady....The sun is peekin' in my window. Unfortunately, a customer has a rush job we have to go do. Hopefully, I'll be back home in time to catch the second half of the Hawks beating the Vikings..... Work also beckoned all day yesterday, so I missed another thrilling UW loss...
You get a D for perceptivity skills.....
Me, a B for my cut/paste abilities....
Good luck with your investing.....you're gonna need it.
-------------------- ..just remember....Family is EVERYTHING!! Posts: 3944 | From: Rochester, NY | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
wallymac wrote: It would have been nice if you had read through the threads that came before the last 2. From very early on this has been the one board that has preached caution and protecting of ones capital. I will have a very difficult time answering any of your futures posts.
"Your testing of the waters" was disingeuous at best. Your talk of attempting to manipulate the stock borders on criminal conspiracy. You have shown your true colors and derailed the true discussion of this stock.
I DON'T THINK I'LL LOSE ANY SLEEP IF A LEFT COAST LIBERAL DOESN'T ANSWER MY POSTS. ALL I WAS SAYING WAS IF ANYONE TRULY BELIEVES IN THIS STOCK, THEN WE SHOULD BE TALKING OF BUYING MORE LIKE DRIVER AND TENCENT. THAT'S WHAT I PLAN ON DOING. SHORTING A PENNY STOCK IS ILLEGAL. BUYING A PENNY STOCK IS NOT
glassman wrote -- derailing good due dilligence has been the main goal of the shorts all along...
i repeat my asssertion that i have seen many lies by the negative posters on this stock..
there has been a constant assualt on this stock since mid-july... funny? i look at the charts? and they tell a differnt story...
YOU ARE SO-SHORTSIDED. DUE DILIGENCE BY ITS VERY DEFINITION IS TO RESEARCH ALL SIDES (WHICH WILL INCLUDE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE)AND PRESENT THE FINDINGS AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS. I AM NOT A SHORT. I DO NOT ATTACK THE STOCK BUT AS A STOCKHOLDER, IT IS MY RIGHT TO QUESTION ANYTHING MANAGEMENT SAYS OR DOES. AN INTELLIGENT PERSON CAN SEE THROUGH THE LIES.
IF I HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN MY POSTINGS, THEN THE MODERATOR SHOULD DISALLOW MY ACCESS.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
PS - If you want every newbie (which each and everyone of you were once) to read everything ever communicated in past threads, you are out of your mind. "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder."
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
Media Statement on Robert Shapiro’s Report on Naked Short Sales
Robert Shapiro has admitted to DTCC he is a paid consultant for the John O’Quinn and Wes Christian legal firms, which have been suing DTCC with respect to naked short selling.
• Robert Shapiro’s report is replete with errors, baseless numbers (e.g., estimated fails), faulty analysis that we believe mischaracterizes and misinforms.
• He ignores authoritative statements by SEC on these issues, which are readily available on the SEC Web site and reinforced in an amicus brief the SEC filed in support of DTCC in a recent legal proceeding. We believe he does this intentionally.
• Mr. Shapiro continuously misstates our role in the industry. DTCC does not regulate the industry and is not an enforcement agency. We are highly regulated by the SEC.
Thus for example, Mr. Shapiro states, “At any time, the DTCC could fully clear and settle every extended naked short sale or failure to deliver by doing what it once did routinely in such cases: Buy the shares itself in the market (“buying in”) and charge the account of the naked short seller’s broker.”
Mr. Shapiro is wrong; the SEC has stated publicly that we do not have such authority:
“NSCC does not have the authority to execute buy-ins on behalf of its members. Moreover, forcing close-outs of all fails can increase risk in clearing and settlement as well as potentially interfering with the trading and pricing of securities.”
• His use of the terms “fails to deliver” and “naked short selling” interchangeably throughout this report is intended to confuse reality and we believe he does this deliberately.
The SEC has stated, “There are many reasons why NSCC members (a subsidiary of DTCC) do not or cannot deliver securities to NSCC on the settlement date. Many times the member will experience a problem that is either unanticipated or is out of its control, such as (1) delays in customer delivery of shares to the broker dealer; (2) an inability to borrow shares in time for settlement; (3) delays in obtaining transfer of title; (4) an inability to obtain transfer of title; and (5) deliberate failure to produce stock at settlement which may result in a broker dealer not receiving shares it had purchased to fulfill its deliver obligations.”
• In truth, failed transactions (whatever the reasons) represent less than one-tenth of one percent of the more than 26 million average daily transactions handled by DTCC.
• Mr. Shapiro asserts that Reg SHO has not reduced the total number of outstanding fails. However, in his own report, his numbers demonstrate a 10% reduction in aggregate fails (nearly 58 million shares) and a 32% reduction in companies on the threshold list–and this was within the first three months under Reg SHO (see table 1, pg 5).
• Mr. Shapiro is absolutely wrong in saying DTCC “tracks the precise number of fails for every stock, including all threshold companies, yet refuses to release those data to anyone, even affected firms.”
DTCC provides data on the volume of fails daily to the regulatory bodies responsible for policing and enforcing broker conduct, including the marketplaces (NYSE, NASD, etc.) and the SEC. In addition, this data is used by these regulatory bodies for reporting on and the policing of Reg SHO compliance.
DTCC’s subsidiaries do not disclose confidential information to the marketplace, including data on fails, since it could potentially be used in market manipulation.
And while we have data on the volume of fails, we have no information on the underlying causes of those fails. As noted above, there are many causes of fails.
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
In recent months, there has been a fair amount of media coverage of naked short selling, Regulation SHO and even DTCC’s role in that via the Stock Borrow program operated by DTCC subsidiary National Securities Clearing Corporation (NSCC). Because there has been much confusion about these issues, and much misinformation, *dtcc sat down with DTCC First Deputy General Counsel Larry Thompson to discuss these issues.
*dtcc: Let’s start with the question, what is naked short selling and why has it suddenly become an issue?
Thompson: Short selling is a trading strategy where a broker/dealer or investor believes that a stock is overvalued and is likely to decline. It is an integral part of the way our capital market system works. Basically, it involves borrowing stock that you don’t own and selling it on the open market. You then buy it back at a later date, hopefully at a lower price, and as a result, making a profit.
Naked short selling is selling stock you don’t own, but not borrowing it and making no attempt to do so. While naked short selling occurs, the extent to which it occurs is in dispute.
*dtcc: DTCC and some of its subsidiaries have been sued over naked shorting. What has been the result of those cases?
Thompson: We’ve had 12 cases to date filed against DTCC or one of our subsidiaries over the naked shorting issue. Nine of the cases have been dismissed by the judge without a trial, or withdrawn by the plaintiff. The other three are pending, and we have moved to dismiss all those cases as well. While the lawyers in these cases have presented their theory of how they think the system works, the fact is that their theories are not an accurate reflection of how the capital market system actually works.
*dtcc: One of the allegations made in some of the lawsuits is that the Stock Borrow program counterfeits shares, creating many more shares than actually exist. True?
Thompson: Absolutely false. Under the Stock Borrow program, NSCC only borrows shares from a lending member if the member actually has the shares on deposit in its account at the DTC and voluntarily offers them to NSCC. If the member doesn’t have the shares, it can’t lend them.
Once a loan is made, the lent shares are deducted from the lender’s DTC account and credited to the DTC account of the member to whom the shares are delivered. Only one NSCC member can have the shares credited to its DTC account at any one time.
The assertion that the same shares are lent over and over again with each new recipient acquiring ownership of the same shares is either an intentional misrepresentation of the SEC-approved system, or a profoundly ignorant characterization of this component of the process of clearing and settling transactions.
*dtcc: Another allegation is that the Stock Borrow program has become “a reliable source of income” for NSCC? Some articles have said we make almost $1 billion from it.
Thompson: This statement is purposely misleading. One billion dollars represents our total revenue from all our operations of all subsidiaries. The fact is that there are NO separate fees for transactions processed through the Stock Borrow program. There is just the normal fee for delivery of the shares, which is 30 cents per delivery. If you assume we make an average of 22,000 deliveries through Stock Borrow a day, there would be about $6,600 extra a day in revenue over 253 trading days, or about $1.67 million a year in additional revenue, out of $1 billion.
All of our members know that DTCC and all its subsidiaries operate on a “not for profit” basis. What that means is that we aim to price our services so that our revenues cover our expenses.
*dtcc: Just how big is the fail to delivers, and how much of those fails does the Stock Borrow program address?
Thompson: Currently, fails to deliver are running about 24,000 transactions daily, and that includes both new and aged fails, out of an average of 23 million new transactions processed daily by NSCC, or about one-tenth of one percent. In dollar terms, fails to deliver and receive amount to about $6 billion daily, again including both new fails and aged fails, out of just under $400 billion in trades processed daily by NSCC, or about 1.5% of the dollar volume. The Stock Borrow program is able to resolve about $1.1 billion of the “fails to receive,” or about 20% of the total fail obligation.
The Stock Borrow program was created in 1981 with the approval of the SEC to help reduce potential problems caused by fails, by enabling NSCC to make deliveries of shares to brokers who bought them when there is a “fail to deliver” by the delivering broker. However, it doesn’t in any way relieve the broker who fails to deliver from that obligation. Even if a “fail to receive” is handled by Stock Borrow, the “fail to deliver” continues to exist, and is counted as part of the total “fails to deliver.” If the total fails to deliver for that issue exceeds 10,000 shares, it gets reported to the markets and the SEC.
*dtcc: If the volume in the Stock Borrow program is so small, why are these companies suggesting it is a major issue?
Thompson: Frankly, we believe that the allegations are attempting to purposely mislead those who are not familiar with this program. A number of small OTCBB and so-called “pink sheet” companies have contended that this practice is driving down the price of their shares and driving them out of business.
According to their own 10K and 10Q reports financial auditor’s disclosure statements, many of these firms have admitted that “factors raise substantial doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.” They have had little or no revenue, according to their financial reports, and substantial losses, for periods of seven or eight years. One of these companies has been cited for failing to file financial statements since 2001. Another has been cited by the SEC for press releases that misled investors on expanding business contracts that didn’t exist. They will do anything they can do that takes people’s attention off that kind of record, especially if they can convince a law firm to take the case on a contingency basis, which is what has happened.
*dtcc: Who are the law firms bringing these suits?
Thompson: The main law firms engaged in these lawsuits, and they have been behind virtually all of them, were principally involved with the tobacco class action lawsuit. They like to bring suits in multiple jurisdictions in an attempt to find any jurisdiction where they might be successful in winning large judgments.
*dtcc: What causes a fail to deliver in a trade? Is it all naked short selling?
Thompson: There can be any number of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” many of them the result of investor actions. An investor can get a physical certificate to his broker too late for settlement. An investor might not have signed the certificate, or signed in the wrong place. There may have been human error, in that the wrong stock (or CUSIP) was sold, so the delivery can’t be made. Last year, 1.7 million physical certificates were lost, and sometimes that isn’t discovered until after an investor puts in an order to sell the security. There are literally dozens of reasons for a “fail to deliver,” and most of them are legal. Reg SHO also allows market makers to legally “naked short” shares in the course of their market making responsibilities, and those obviously result in fails. We can’t do anything about them but what we are doing: that is, report all fails of more than 10,000 shares in any issue to the marketplaces and the SEC for their action.
*dtcc: What happens then?
Thompson: The markets check to see if the amount of fails to deliver is more than 1/2 of 1% of the total outstanding shares in that security. If it is, then it goes on a “Threshold List.” If it is then on the Threshold List for 13 consecutive settlement days, restrictions on short selling then apply. The “close-out” requirement forces a participant of a registered clearing agency to close out any “fail to deliver” position in a threshold security that has remained for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity. If the participant does not take action to close out the open fail to deliver position, the participant is prohibited from making further short sales in that security without first borrowing or arranging to borrow the security. Even market makers are not exempt from this requirement.
*dtcc: So Reg SHO doesn’t force them to close out the position, but if they don’t, they are prohibited from making any additional short sales without borrowing the shares first?
Thompson: That’s right.
*dtcc: Does DTCC have a regulatory role in naked short selling? What authority does it have to force companies to settle a fail?
Thompson: Naked short selling, or short selling, is a trading activity. We don’t have any power or legal authority to regulate or stop short selling, naked or otherwise. We also have no power to force member firms to close out or resolve fails to deliver. That power is reserved for the SEC and the markets, be it the NYSE, Nasdaq, Amex, or any of the other markets. The fact is, we don’t even see whether a sale is short or not. That’s something only the markets see. NSCC just gets “buys” and “sells,” and it’s our job to try and clear and settle those trades.
*dtcc: Why won’t you reveal the number of fails to deliver in each position to the issuer of the security?
Thompson: There are a couple of reasons. First, we provide that information to regulators and the SROs so they can investigate fails and determine whether there are violations of law going on. Releasing that information might jeopardize those investigations, and we feel they are the appropriate organizations to get that information since they can act on it. Second, NSCC rules prohibit release of trading data, or any reports based on the trading data, to anyone other than participant firms, regulators, or self-regulatory bodies such as the NYSE or Nasdaq. We do that for the obvious reason that the trading data we receive could be used to manipulate the market, as well as reveal trading patterns of individual firms.
*dtcc: How does DTCC respond to claims that shares from cash accounts and/or retirement accounts and/or institutional accounts are being put into the lending pool of the Stock Borrow program?
Thompson: It is our broker and bank members who control their DTC accounts. They can and do segregate shares that they are not permitted to lend out. Neither NSCC nor DTC monitor or regulate that activity. It is done by the SROs and the SEC. However, there is no requirement that brokers or banks participate in the Stock Borrow program, and neither DTC nor NSCC can take shares from an account unless those shares are voluntarily offered by the broker or bank member.
*dtcc: Do you think there is illegal naked shorting going on?
Thompson: Certainly there have been cases in the past where it has, and those cases have been prosecuted by the SEC and other appropriate enforcement agencies. I suppose there will be cases where someone else will try to break the law in the future. But I also don’t believe that there is the huge, systemic, illegal naked shorting that some have charged is going on. To say that there are trillions of dollars involved in this is ridiculous. The fact is that fails, as a percentage of total trading, hasn’t changed in the last 10 years. *
Posts: 106 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Final Bump... I didn't get much of a response to this post and I'd thought I'd bump it incase it was just missed.
quote:Originally posted by Spooky: I hate to dirty up this beautiful new thread with a non-DD (ish) question, but they locked the other one so I'm not sure where else to post it.
I'd like some speculation on what will happen given the best case scenario that we are hoping for. For the sake of this conversation, lets say that the 30th comes around and the short squeeze happens, meaning (again for the sake of this argument) a closing price of $20 per share.
Now, all of my shares were purchased on the 4th and 6th of October. They are in an account with Scottrade. I have no way of knowing (yet) if what I have are real or air shares, I'd guess there is better than a 75% chance that they are air. I believe that Scottrade will be on the hook for providing me with real shares or something of equivilent value. So, my question to you folks is this...
In my situation, is it worth requesting the certs at this point (considering it is unlikely that I could recieve them before the 30th), or should I just look forward to joing whatever actions Rufus has planned to help me get propper compensation.
Cases Filed Against The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation (“DTCC”) and its Affiliates Related to the Issue of Naked Short Selling
There have been 14 cases filed against DTCC involving naked short selling. Of those, as of May 2006, 10 cases have been either dismissed by the courts involved or withdrawn by the plaintiffs. In one case, the court allowed legal sanctions against the plaintiff, which allowed DTCC to seek partial reimbursement of its legal costs. Three cases have been filed but not served (to date) against DTCC. One motion to dismiss a case is still pending decision.
Name of Case Filed Disposition 1. Williamson v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al. January 31, 2003 Dismissed by court, March 17, 2004 (as to moving defendants - DTCC Defendants never served).
2. Nutek v. Ameritrade, Inc., et al. March 21, 2003 Dismissed voluntarily by plaintiffs as against DTCC Director Defendants, with prejudice, May 18, 2004. Dismissed as against remaining DTCC Defendants, July 30, 2004.
3. Genemax Corp. v. Knight Securities, LP, et al. November 14, 2003 Dismissed by court, November 9, 2004 (DTCC Defendants not served).
4. Capece v. Elgindy, et al. April 28, 2004 Dismissed voluntarily by plaintiff as against DTCC Defendants, August 3, 2004.
5. Nanopierce Technologies, Inc. v. The Depository Trust Co., et al. April 29, 2004 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss, April 28, 2005. Appeal pending in Supreme Court of Nevada.
6. Sporn v. Elgindy, et al. August 30, 2004 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss, July 25, 2005. Sanctions awarded in favor of DTCC Defendants.
7. Walters v. DTCC, et al. August 30, 2004 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss (no opposition filed), December 7, 2004.
8. Pet Quarters, Inc. v. The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation, et al. October 29, 2004 DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiffs’ motion to remand to state court pending.
9. Capece v. DTCC, et al. April 29, 2005 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion, October 11, 2005.
10. Whistler Investments, Inc. v. DTCC, et al. May 12, 2005 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion, May 31, 2006. DTCC’s motion for the award of sanctions pending.
11. Miller, as Trustee v. Boston Partners Management LP, et al. January, 2006 Filed, not served, and DTCC Defendants dropped from litigation.
Related Early Cases 1. X-Clearing Corporation v. Depository Trust Corporation, et al. (Intergold, Inc. action) February 18, 2003 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss, October 3, 2003.
2. Intergold Corporation v. Depository Trust Corporation, et al. March 10, 2003 Filed, never served.
3. X-Clearing Corporation v.
Depository Trust Corporation, et al.
(Petrogen Corp. action) February 25, 2003 Dismissed by court on DTCC Defendants’ motion to dismiss, September 5, 2003.
-------------------- "I will smack you in the mouth, I'm Neil Diamond"- Will Ferrell Posts: 4190 | From: Rhode Island | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
this is very real: NASD Charges NevWest Securities Corporation and Principals with Violating Anti-Money Laundering Rules
Firm Failed to File Suspicious Activity Reports Despite Suspicious Sales Of Hundreds of Billions of Shares of Sub-Penny Stock by Customer
Washington, D.C. — NASD announced today that it has charged NevWest Securities Corporation of Las Vegas and two of its top officers - President Sergey Rumyantsev and Vice President Antony M. Santos - with violating NASD's Anti-Money Laundering Rule.
In its complaint, NASD charges that the firm failed to adequately implement and enforce procedures to detect and report suspicious transactions that the firm had reason to suspect involved possible securities fraud. Specifically, the complaint charges that the firm failed to conduct adequate due diligence and file appropriate Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) in connection with highly suspicious transactions by a customer of the firm. NASD alleges that, during the relevant period, the customer opened 32 accounts at NevWest and sold more than 250 billion shares of a sub-penny stock, which generated total sales proceeds of over $53 million. NASD alleged that NevWest earned commission revenue on the sales totaling $2.5 million - 36 percent of the firm's total revenues during the relevant period.
"Suspicious Activity Reports provide law enforcement with information that's critical for investigating and prosecuting money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes," said James S. Shorris, NASD Executive Vice President and Head of Enforcement. "Broker-dealers have an obligation to investigate 'red flags' indicating suspicious activity and, where appropriate, to file SARs. Despite a multitude of very obvious red flags, NevWest chose to look the other way, earning millions for itself in the process."
quote:Originally posted by Jenna: [QB] Rburnout = Rstreet ....It's so obvious, man, come on!!!! I find it peculiar how you only show up here in the wee hours of the night - Is that because where you are it's day time. Why don't you come to our side of the pond I hear some feds hear have a nice orange jumpsuit for you (it used to belong to Martha Stewart!)
Well, good mornin' li'l lady....The sun is peekin' in my window. Unfortunately, a customer has a rush job we have to go do. Hopefully, I'll be back home in time to catch the second half of the Hawks beating the Vikings..... Work also beckoned all day yesterday, so I missed another thrilling UW loss...
You get a D for perceptivity skills.....
Me, a B for my cut/paste abilities....
Good luck with your investing.....you're gonna need it.
Unfortunately Rburnout, I'm going to have to give you an "F" for your cut-n-paste abilities because all you really needed to do was click on the (") quote symbol.
-------------------- ~You aren't wealthy until you have something money can't buy.~ Posts: 3070 | From: CT | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
They dismiss cases because the sec is suppose to be the watchdog not the courts. JMHO
Posts: 478 | From: Palm Desert, Ca. U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by cbbush: wallymac wrote: It would have been nice if you had read through the threads that came before the last 2. From very early on this has been the one board that has preached caution and protecting of ones capital. I will have a very difficult time answering any of your futures posts.
"Your testing of the waters" was disingeuous at best. Your talk of attempting to manipulate the stock borders on criminal conspiracy. You have shown your true colors and derailed the true discussion of this stock.
I DON'T THINK I'LL LOSE ANY SLEEP IF A LEFT COAST LIBERAL DOESN'T ANSWER MY POSTS. ALL I WAS SAYING WAS IF ANYONE TRULY BELIEVES IN THIS STOCK, THEN WE SHOULD BE TALKING OF BUYING MORE LIKE DRIVER AND TENCENT. THAT'S WHAT I PLAN ON DOING. SHORTING A PENNY STOCK IS ILLEGAL. BUYING A PENNY STOCK IS NOT
glassman wrote -- derailing good due dilligence has been the main goal of the shorts all along...
i repeat my asssertion that i have seen many lies by the negative posters on this stock..
there has been a constant assualt on this stock since mid-july... funny? i look at the charts? and they tell a differnt story...
YOU ARE SO-SHORTSIDED. DUE DILIGENCE BY ITS VERY DEFINITION IS TO RESEARCH ALL SIDES (WHICH WILL INCLUDE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE)AND PRESENT THE FINDINGS AND MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS. I AM NOT A SHORT. I DO NOT ATTACK THE STOCK BUT AS A STOCKHOLDER, IT IS MY RIGHT TO QUESTION ANYTHING MANAGEMENT SAYS OR DOES. AN INTELLIGENT PERSON CAN SEE THROUGH THE LIES.
IF I HAVE DONE ANYTHING WRONG IN MY POSTINGS, THEN THE MODERATOR SHOULD DISALLOW MY ACCESS.
cbbush?
what are you yelling about now?
moderators don't have the ability to determine who is lying and who is telling the truth...
moderators don't have a "secret decoder" ring that tells them what the ultimate truth is...
they do have the right to delete rude insulting posts...
and calling me short-sighted is rude and insulting...
i don't know if wallymac considers your post to him her rude or insulting or not...
but?
you addressed me directly ...
i was not even talking to you, i was responding to wallymac...
now? maybe the moderators should delete this post... maybe they shouldn't...
it doesn't matter...
i've been reading the posts on several boards since mid-july..
i've read the filings and other forms of REAL DUE DILLIGENCE and made my decisions based on that...
you signed up under this particular name here a couple of days ago and have posted exclusively on this stock...
i suggest you tone down the name-calling and insults....and read the User Agreement Review here:
posted
66inxs…….just getting caught up again and read your question of yesterday evening, …..apologies for the time lapse....right after I posted yesterday, I went out for dinner and a movie with friends and then did not get back on till this evening………( editorial note……I have taken the time to read approximately 4 pages now to get caught up again, and when I started as a newbie in July, I took the time to read a lot of pages of the FHAL thread(s) and the SEC filings of FHAL to “start” developing an understanding of what was going on with this company…still learning as each day goes by) …..
FWIW….as for what I believe….the F/S’s of CSHD (like any company) are generally a snapshot of one point in time. And this snapshot for the 06-30-06 YE F/S of CSHD are represented by SEC filing as audited information. I interpret the B/S to be showing a strong equity position with low debt ( roughly a .05 debt to equity ratio) which is very positive to me, as well as the Income statement showing a gain in income by way of the interest income when it’s washed against operating expenses.
I would like to be able to see a better picture of CSHD’s financial performance over time by being able to compare prior year and prior quarter results, but with this being the onset of a newly merged publicly traded entity, such comparison will be kind of difficult to see, as well as being able to compare the 06-30-06 YE F/S of CSHD to the 06-30-05 YE F/S when they were a private company. (Question….has anyone asked management for the 2005 YE F/S in the phone calls and conversations they have had in the past few months?……..If this has been already information posted, I have missed it and would hope to have it pointed out again to the thread members..) Also, it would be instructive to see how other holding and /or investment companies financial ratio’s have performed during the same time period.
As such I have developed a reasonable confidence in the company’s representation of it’s positive financial status at YE for 2006.
Now, I am interested in seeing what the 1st quarter financials are that we will see in the 10-Q, so that we can have data to understand the combined B/S of the merged FHAL and CVUS entities, in terms of the asset bookings of the bonds that have been publicized and the status of the FHAL liabilities, as well as any other significant transactions. And to be able to develop a picture of CSHD’s financial performance over a broader time frame.
Only IMHO…..GLTA and hoping we see a tremendous week…..
-------------------- "No nation was ever ruined by trade." Benjamin Franklin Posts: 533 | From: Dooville, Indiana | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by VoodooNola: Does anybody know about the Executive VP of Global Investments, Romeo Venditti
Trying to get back to DD here. My past googling and other poking around has turned up nothing except for the PR's and a musician and an amateur athlete of the same name. I'm not certain if they are the same person, but I imagine they aren't.
Posts: 949 | From: Little Rock, AR | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
