Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'Naked Short Selling'
Investor Village ^ | 16 May 12 | Matt Taibbi

Posted on 05/17/2012 7:00:16 AM PDT by The Working Man

Edited on 05/20/2012 3:00:38 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

It doesn’t happen often, but sometimes God smiles on us. Last week, he smiled on investigative reporters everywhere, when the lawyers for Goldman, Sachs slipped on one whopper of a legal banana peel, inadvertently delivering some of the bank’s darker secrets into the hands of the public.

The lawyers for Goldman and Bank of America/Merrill Lynch have been involved in a legal battle for some time – primarily with the retail giant Overstock.com, but also with Rolling Stone, the Economist, Bloomberg, and the New York Times. The banks have been fighting us to keep sealed certain documents that surfaced in the discovery process of an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit filed by Overstock against the banks.

Last week, in response to an Overstock.com motion to unseal certain documents, the banks’ lawyers, apparently accidentally, filed an unredacted version of Overstock’s motion as an exhibit in their declaration of opposition to that motion. In doing so, they inadvertently entered into the public record a sort of greatest-hits selection of the very material they’ve been fighting for years to keep sealed.

***Snip***

“**** the compliance area – procedures, schmecedures,” chirps Peter Melz, former president of Merrill Lynch Professional Clearing Corp. (a.k.a. Merrill Pro), when a subordinate worries about the company failing to comply with the rules governing short sales.

We also find out here how Wall Street professionals manipulated public opinion by buying off and/or intimidating experts in their respective fields. In one email made public in this document, a lobbyist for SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, tells a Goldman executive how to engage an expert who otherwise would go work for “our more powerful enemies,” i.e. would work with Overstock on the company’s lawsuit.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Conspiracy; Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: boa; goldman; goldmansachs; matttaibbi; nakedshorting; nakedshortselling; shorting
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
I ran across this and thought it was a well written piece. Mainly in that it involves my BIGGEST pet peeve with the Stock Market.

Naked Shorts and stock price manipulations by the insiders running the Market.

Have fun reading and if you are so inclined drink your Maalox first.

1 posted on 05/17/2012 7:00:22 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
Apparently, you do not realize who Matt Taibbi actually is/i>.
2 posted on 05/17/2012 7:02:30 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Get rid of naked shorts AND the dark pools and that would be most of what’s wrong with Wall St fixed overnight


3 posted on 05/17/2012 7:05:50 AM PDT by Reaganite Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

No not really, who do you think he is? I just liked the article since it spoke to my own suspicions and prejudices about Naked Short Selling.


4 posted on 05/17/2012 7:06:51 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

He’s a communist homo.


5 posted on 05/17/2012 7:08:28 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Interesting, thank you for telling me. But now onto the article; Is what he wrote inaccurate? Should I discount everything he writes?


6 posted on 05/17/2012 7:11:28 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Reaganite Republican

And the backroom trading networks. All the major players use internetworks to trade between themselves.


7 posted on 05/17/2012 7:14:32 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called “gay” instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
Maybe you should watch him talk about it on TV. He appears on the Rachel Maddow show all the time.
8 posted on 05/17/2012 7:15:04 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
I have no objection to naked short selling per se. I do object when the tactic is used by investment bankers or fund managers.

If an investor (by your leave there is no sharp line between investor and speculator) wishes to expose his own portfolio to unlimited losses, that is his own business. If a banker or manager decides to expose others' portfolios to unlimited losses, that is an abrogation of fiduciary responsibility and probably should be subject to prosecution.

9 posted on 05/17/2012 7:17:53 AM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

That’s a bit hard for me to do. I got rid of the idiot box years ago. Just my laptop now for anything like that.

And I wouldn’t watch Rachel Maddow in any case.


10 posted on 05/17/2012 7:19:01 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
The part you snipped isn't compelling as to your peeve about naked short-selling (what other kind is there?) and that "insiders run the market".

Even with short-selling, as in any transaction, there is a party on the other side who perceives a benefit from the transaction. Why shouldn't he be allowed to do it?
11 posted on 05/17/2012 7:19:24 AM PDT by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man
And I wouldn’t watch Rachel Maddow in any case.

Why wouldn't you? You read Taibbi.

12 posted on 05/17/2012 7:22:02 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

My problem with Naked Shorts is that the investor doesn’t OWN them. If he owned them that’s different, but he doesn’t. Naked Shorts can and definitely do lead into major stack manipulation.

In most ways this a moral thing for me. Naked shorts are just like a stranger coming into my yard and borrowing my tools and my lawn mower and using them irresponsibly and then returning them either damaged or broken.

I lost my value and usability of my tools and he got everything out of them with little or no consequences since I didn’t know he was doing it in the first place and now its too late to stop him.


13 posted on 05/17/2012 7:25:29 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Yup. Been on the receiving end of naked shorting many times over the years...read th “Dendreon Effect”. By Mark Mitchell.

Patrick Byrne is an American hero, so is Angela Merkel ( she stopped shorting in Germany).

I hope Patrick nails them to the wall.

This is NOT our fathers’ stock market...you have to tread carefully.


14 posted on 05/17/2012 7:26:57 AM PDT by SueRae (The Tower of Sauron falls on 11.06.2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

What is “naked” short selling, exactly, and how is it different from regular short selling? I presume it’s akin to “naked aggression,” or something like that.


15 posted on 05/17/2012 7:30:55 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

“Naked shorts are just like a stranger coming into my yard and borrowing my tools and my lawn mower and using them irresponsibly and then returning them either damaged or broken.”

You’re trying as hard as you can to make it sound like theft, but fall far short. What kind of idiot lends their lawn mower to strangers? It bugs me to no end, this pretence that freely agreed upon exchanges on the free market are somehow supposed to be stealing. For every short seller, there’s a long buyer. For every guy wheeling with other people’s money, there are those other people who let them do it.

If we’re talking about fraud or force, that’s one thing. But then we call it fraud or theft, not “naked blah blah blah.”


16 posted on 05/17/2012 7:35:48 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

Let’s define terms.

Naked shorting is not shorting.

What is shorting? Shorting is where one borrows shares from another to sell but they must be bought back again and returned to the original owner of the shares.

How does one make money by shorting? One makes money by selling borrowed shares and buying them back cheaper.

______________________________________________________
Paul lends shares —> Peter sells Paul’s shares —> Market

Market tanks.

Market sells back shares —> Peter returns shares —> Paul

Peter has ‘shorted’ the market.

All short transactions are ‘cleared’ through clearing houses.
______________________________________________________

What is ‘Naked’ Shorting?

In the above scenario there is no Paul and there are no shares. Peter just makes up shares out of thin air much like the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air.

But regulations allow the Federal Reserve and only the Federal Reserve to create money from nothing. Not so with stock market shares, regulations require shares to be real.

So Naked Shorting is a form of counterfeiting and if the big brokers like Goldman Sachs can counterfeit shares to inject into the exhanges, then they can drive a market up and down at will.

Overstock has been after Wall St. and the Naked Shorting issue for a long time because more shares have been shorted against the company’s stock than exist in the first place. In other words certain bankster gangsters on Wall St. have launched short attacks on Overstock.com.

Naked Shorters on Wall St. can launch short attacks on companies and drive them to bankruptcy. Then predatory hedge funds like Romney’s Bain Capital can move in and offer ‘help’ to the victims of the short attack. But ‘help’ means buying assets for pennies on the dollar, lies about assuming debt burdens and taking over cash assets.

It’s a racket for sure and it does involve the mafia who have infiltrated banks and hedge funds. The SEC is bought off. The criminals control the markets and answer only to politicians who tell them to manage the talent pool of High Frequency Traders and to keep the markets spiked for retirement accounts so as not to cause unrest.


17 posted on 05/17/2012 7:36:43 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

See Post #17.


18 posted on 05/17/2012 7:38:13 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
"He’s a communist homo."

I'll take your word for it. But it doesn't make him wrong about this. Naked Short Selling is not good for the financial markets. No trade should be allowed to fail due to naked short selling. The penalties on such failed trades should be huge.

19 posted on 05/17/2012 7:39:26 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
An ordinary and proper short sale involves borrowing the shares from a stockholder and then selling them into the market. Nothing at all wrong with this practice; the short seller (or his brokerage) must return the shares to the lender when the short seller closes the trade.

A naked short sale, contrarily, does NOT involve the borrowing of shares and simply executes a sale. This has many problems.

1) a naked short sale does NOT deliver shares to the purchasor (the person on the other side of the short sale). This is termed a "fail to deliver" and is a violation of securities rules AND, if repeated or done in sufficient quantity, of Federal statutes. There are now billions of shares of "fails" floating around due to the 'wink-wink, nudge-nudge' attitude of many brokerages toward naked short sales.

2) a naked short sale effectively creates stock shares out of thin air, which is impossible in the practical world and unlawful in the legal world.

Example: suppose a company has issued 10,000,000 shares. Suppose also that someone naked shorts 25,000 shares. Someone else buys these shorted shares. The buyer does not have possession of the shares, but they are carried in his account on the brokerage books as an asset. This trade affects in no way the original 10,000,000 shares issued, yet now 10,025,000 shares can be 'lawfully' sold.

Multiply this transaction by, say, 1000 and you end up with more naked short 'shares' than actually exist in the world. Ridiculous, you say -- can't happen? Sorry, this is the exact state of affairs in AT LEAST 209 listed companies' shares in the US, as of May 1, 2012.

And the authorities do nothing whatever about it.

And you see nothing wrong with this? Sheesh. You must be a goobermint accountant whose job also involves fantasy.

20 posted on 05/17/2012 7:40:45 AM PDT by SAJ (What is the next tagline some overweening mod will censor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

You don’t understand how Naked Shorting is different than Shorting. See Post #17.


21 posted on 05/17/2012 7:41:21 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man

this reminds me of the nasd report on nasdaq mm’s from the mid-1990’s. they are pretty blantant about intentionally making ftd’s. wonder if it will get any mainstream financial press coverage.


22 posted on 05/17/2012 7:42:01 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Be that as it may, Glodman Sachs and the other large brokerage firms are not your friends. If it takes a commie homo to shed some light on the crony capitalism, backed up with subsidies coming out of your pocket when their trips to the roulette table go poorly, than so be it.

Every single one of the people we elect are essntially DC whores that are required to perform fellatio on these companies at every opportunity. That is what they have been paid to do. So the companies get to keep their profits, pay some hush money and offer up a sacrifice to a regulator every now and then (see “Harry Blodgett”), and get their losses made good by the very people they rip off (us). Pretty sweet system, but not what anyone with a sound mind would call a “free market” or “capitalism”.

You try to open a new brokerage firm or buy one from one of the small firm owners that are leaving the business in droves and let me how you get treated by FINRA and the SEC. Your small firm will get the attack dog treatment from them, while they acts as purse chihuahuas for the real crooks - and I count Goldman in the real crook category.


23 posted on 05/17/2012 7:43:28 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Write in Chuck Norris for POTUS and tell the power brokers to FOAD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: L,TOWM
Taibbi argues (not sure if he does so here, because I'm not giving that blog any hits) that naked short-selling brought down Lehman and that other firm whose name I can't recall right away.

What really happened is that Lehman brought down Lehman. Grabbing the pitchforks and chasing after naked short-sellers may be a popular pastime, but wouldn't you rather address the problem(s) that brought down Lehman in the first place?

This commie homo has you barking up the wrong tree. Next time, it will be the oil speculators. Next time . . . .

24 posted on 05/17/2012 7:51:53 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

ouch

you pwned that exchange


25 posted on 05/17/2012 7:59:37 AM PDT by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Overstock has been after Wall St. and the Naked Shorting issue for a long time because more shares have been shorted against the company’s stock than exist in the first place. In other words certain bankster gangsters on Wall St. have launched short attacks on Overstock.com.

That is still possible even without naked short selling. Let's say that you own some stock. I borrow it from you and sell it to person B. That is normal short selling. I am so sure that it will go down that I borrow that same share from person B and sell it again. Now there are two short shares sold for only one real share existing. Each time I borrowed a real share of stock instead of a counterfeit one created by the brokerage firms like in naked short selling.

I guess it could be possible to set up regulations so that a share can only be shorted once, but that would set up a situation where a share shorted once would be a slightly less valuable stock than one that still could be shorted, which should be accounted for somehow (maybe a mandatory dividend paid by the shorter to the new owner of the stock.

26 posted on 05/17/2012 8:01:30 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (You only have three billion heartbeats in a lifetime.How many does the government claim as its own?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well said. And yes, there are laws on te books to prevet this...and yet, the SEC does nothing.

Naked short selling is a big contributor to investors fleeing the market...it is uncontrolled, except by the insiders..the rest, the regulators, financial media, lawmakers and judges..are captured.


27 posted on 05/17/2012 8:08:33 AM PDT by SueRae (The Tower of Sauron falls on 11.06.2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Hostage

Well said. And yes, there are laws on te books to prevet this...and yet, the SEC does nothing.

Naked short selling is a big contributor to investors fleeing the market...it is uncontrolled, except by the insiders..the rest, the regulators, financial media, lawmakers and judges..are captured.


28 posted on 05/17/2012 8:09:04 AM PDT by SueRae (The Tower of Sauron falls on 11.06.2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: The Working Man; 1rudeboy
I used to day trade for a living in the 90s

a sizable war chest picking off whatever I could on a full throttle apparatus

screens everywhere actual mini market maker trades.....i think it was a TNT system and I could buy direct from a maker like GSCO or AAH or MSCO or thru SOUS....my only limit was ISDN feed instead of T3 which did prove deadly on the ELOAN ipo pop and subsequent cliff dive

i shorted as much as I went long but I never naked shorted...never even heard of it

naked options yes but I rarely placed options and only thru my broker not as a market buyer myself

but I just read up on it...sounds like a poor practice but i agree with rude....it did not bring down the houses

poor mgt, a very faulty home mortgage market ..mostly from govt crap and leveraged thru derivatives was the biggest culprit..and then it just snowballed

only reason Lehman went down is they were first

these big houses inhabit a universe of their own...and truly are like independent world economies all their own but like the girls they are they run to us to bail them out when they collapse

i hate it...same for the banks

we shoulda let them run their course...no question

what woulda arisen from that woulda have been far superior to now which really is crony capitalism

29 posted on 05/17/2012 8:16:00 AM PDT by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
He wrote Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche. It's actually a pretty good read foul mouthed read. The guy definitely doesn't hide his feelings or biases.
30 posted on 05/17/2012 8:19:39 AM PDT by glorgau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Peter just makes up shares out of thin air much like the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air.

True. The FedResBank has no 'risk' in the money they 'loan'. The amount of 'money' that they loan is not even important to them (they never get it back). It is just numbers on a computer screen and it's only purpose is to produce the 'income' to the FRB of 'interest payments'.

To that end, the FedResBank allows each 'bank' they distribute this printed currency to, to then 'loan' out around 2 and 1/2 TIMES the actual amount of 'money' the bank received.

Why?

Because the 'banks' can pay back more 'interest' to the FRB, this 'profit income' is the only thing that is important and has value to them. That is why they allow their customers (our country's bankers) to lie about the actual 'assets' they have.

This method of fudging the numbers to ensure profit is the actual source of INFLATION.

The bankers of Wall Street are just following company policy.

31 posted on 05/17/2012 8:30:37 AM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Ad hominem aside, the document exposed is what it is (And I urge Freepers to save a copy before it disappears from the web).

It indicates that Goldman Sachs is dirty, and it doesn't matter if the guy writing about it is gay or straight, Right or Left.

32 posted on 05/17/2012 8:38:35 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can’t be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
Multiply this transaction by, say, 1000 and you end up with more naked short 'shares' than actually exist in the world. Ridiculous, you say -- can't happen? Sorry, this is the exact state of affairs in AT LEAST 209 listed companies' shares in the US, as of May 1, 2012. And the authorities do nothing whatever about it.

If regulators wanted to actually do something about it, it would be easy. Impose a fine for "fail to deliver" at an amount equal to the highest trade price for the affected stock between the naked short sale and the delivery date -- on top of actually having to deliver the shares (buying on the open market at whatever price necessary). Naked shorts would immediately stop.

33 posted on 05/17/2012 8:44:10 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can’t be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad
Should I discount everything he writes?

No.

34 posted on 05/17/2012 8:57:18 AM PDT by Stentor ("All cults of personality start out as high drama and end up as low comedy.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The “other firm” was Bear Stearns.

And I am well aware of what created the buying opportunity for JP Morgan and what took down Lehman. While naked shorting did not “take those firms down”, it did atificially depress share value in the companies during the run-up to their failures, contributed to negative perceptions due to the declining share price, and make it more difficult for these firms to get the liquidity and financing they needed that PERHAPS could have kept them from going belly-up. The naked shorting also turned what should have been an orderly exit buy long holders into routs that cost other investors, large and small, hundreds of millions while the big boys made profits on the volatility.

While not technically illegal prior to the implementation of Reg SHO, it is just part and parcel to what our system has devolved into — if you are in the club, you don’t have to bother with actually settling a trade or following other inconvemient rules that get smaller firms bounced from the business. If a member of John Q. Public wants to short, have the shares or pay through the nose to borrow them. The big boys are STILL doing this, even under Reg SHO. Unethical and even illegal behavior is OK for these creatures, because the fines they have to pay are miniscule compared to the profits they can make. And nobody ever goes to jail, even for conduct like Goldman structuring a deal that they knew was going to blow up, telling investors it is a good investment and selling it to them, and then shorting the investment while making money on all three legs of the deal.

I am not in the energy business so I don’t know about oil speculators. I do know about securities firms and I will tell you once again - if you love the concept of free markets and captalism, large securities firms are not your friends. Sometimes even a commie homo has to be the one to point out that in too many cases, the biggest enemy of capitalism are capitalists.


35 posted on 05/17/2012 9:06:37 AM PDT by L,TOWM (Write in Chuck Norris for POTUS and tell the power brokers to FOAD.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

And I wouldn’t watch Rachel Maddow in any case.

Why wouldn’t you? You read Taibbi.


Nasty... Frankly the major reason I read “everything” is that it tends to block out visual and auditory “clues” that are inherent in television. Television by it’s very nature is a passive activity. Reading allows thought and attempts at comprehension of the written material. And thanks to the net I can do additional research as needed.

Now it’s time to get back out to the fields and do some more fencing as well as my other chores. Being a farmer doesn’t let me waste much daylight.


36 posted on 05/17/2012 9:24:42 AM PDT by The Working Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio

I don’t agree with you that current regulations aloow more than one share to be shorted against one share.

But it does happen the way you described but regulations do not support it. It is illegal. There has to be underlying stock to support a short sale period.


37 posted on 05/17/2012 11:14:55 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SAJ; Hostage
Please give me ONE example of a company where TOTAL short sales, naked or borrowed, exceed total issued shares.

For examples, two of the most shorted stocks currently:
Frontier Communications Corp. (FTR)- 204 million short shares (20.5X ave. daily trading volume in stock) versus total issued 1 billion shares
RR Donnelly (RRD)- 57 million short shares (32X ave. daily volume) versus 182 million issued shares

Legally a broker can sell shares he doesn't hold only in the course of market-making, where he has a reasonable expectation to cover by the settlement date.

Given the penalties and regulatory risk, a reputable broker-dealer would not deliberately engage in short selling.

I don't believe there's any evidence that naked short selling is a big risk, I suspect it's a cat's paw to eliminate short selling entirely, so that corporate executives can better entrench themselves from gimlet-eyed opportunist investors.

Then we'd have to depend more on the "gubbmint" to expose securities fraud.
38 posted on 05/17/2012 11:24:26 AM PDT by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Yes sure there are examples. I admit I haven’t paid attention to this subject for many years but I remember Mike Snyder doing a devastating special report (video) on naked shorting where he produced examples of companies that at the end of the day had more shorted shares outstanding than existed.

Give me some time to see if I can dig that report up.

But the real nail in the coffin for defenders/deniers of naked shorting was when Mike interviewed an investor that had bought every share of a small publicly traded company. He owned 100% of the stock and had no agreement with any brokerage to lend the shares, no hypothecation agreement.

And he showed how this company was shorted to 130% or so even though every share was owned by one individual who had never given permission to anyone to borrow his shares for shorting.

Can’t remember the name of the company but will try to find it. It’s been 4 or 5 years that I was in the market.


39 posted on 05/17/2012 11:42:58 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kenavi; SAJ; Hostage
I left one word out:

Given the penalties and regulatory risk, a reputable broker-dealer would not deliberately engage in NAKED short selling.
40 posted on 05/17/2012 11:43:13 AM PDT by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kenavi; SAJ
Found it. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEOpTqmLZB7A

Also I spelled Mike's name wrong, it's Schneider not Snyder.

The company was Global Links.

Here's the relevant part of the transcript:

SCHNEIDER: In March 2005, the Senate Banking Committee confronted then-SEC Chairman William Donaldson with a story about Frank Dobrucki's company, the Nevada-based real estate holding company, Global Links. An investor named Robert Simpson had set out to prove that small companies were indeed frequent targets of abusive naked short sellers.

Simpson placed an order for $5,000 worth of stock in Global Links. That got Simpson ownership of all 1.1 million Global Link shares in the market. Not some of them, all of them.

UNIDENTIFIED: There were no shares available to be borrowed, and yet in two days, there were over 50 million shares traded. That's clearly something that needs work.

SIMPSON: I was absolutely blown away when I bought 1,282,050 shares, which equated to 111 percent of the issued and outstanding. I just couldn't even fathom that. So, it wasn't just crooked, it was Wild West times 10.

SCHNEIDER: The day all this started, trading in Global Links opened at 10 cents a share. Within a second, the price dropped to a penny. An hour and 16 minutes later, Global Links stock was trading at eight one-hundredths of a penny. Prices dropped 99 percent in less than two hours.

41 posted on 05/17/2012 11:53:35 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

Well to make the distinction between shorting and naked shorting is crucial and to your credit but you also included in the same sentence the word ‘reputable’ which is in the eye of the beholder.

Floor traders follow rules well enough to give the appearance of a well-regulated exchange but floor traders do not know if the sell order originates from a stock holder, a short seller or a naked short seller.

So ‘reputable’ means essentially nothing on the Street. You can follow all the rules and still be complicit in a crime knowingly or not.


42 posted on 05/17/2012 12:02:24 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
"$5,000"!

Not worth talking about.
43 posted on 05/17/2012 1:13:18 PM PDT by kenavi (1% of the 1% were born in the 1%.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kenavi

That’s the sorriest excuse for a dismissal I have ever seen.

You must be a supporter of naked shorting to respond like that.

Global Links was worth considerably more before the naked short attack.

It doesn’t matter if it’s 5 thousand or 5 gazillion. What matters is irrefutable proof that naked shorting exists and destroys companies that are its targets. That’s what the transcript clearly and irrefutably presents.


44 posted on 05/17/2012 1:21:31 PM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
Just one? Trivial.

At various times over the past 3 years, the shares of Sirius, the satellite radio company, have shown more "short" shares than ever were issued by the company. The recent run-up over $2/share chased a lot of these away, but the naked shorters may be coming back now. They WILL be coming back w/o more money printing by Helicopter Bennie and the Inkjets, aka QE or Twist.

You'll need to go to the pinks to find most of the companies in this situation. Not surprisingly, excessive naked shorting also has the undesirable side effect of driving the share price to pennies, quite artificially.

45 posted on 05/17/2012 2:07:04 PM PDT by SAJ (What is the next tagline some overweening mod will censor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625
Agreed and spot on, PapaBear.

However, the operative word there is "if". Regulators don't seem to be in ANY sort of hurry to correct these abuses, now do they?

;^)

46 posted on 05/17/2012 2:09:43 PM PDT by SAJ (What is the next tagline some overweening mod will censor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: kenavi
The article above itself proves your view to be incorrect. Read the quote from the Merrill Lynch guy again.

Either Merrill Lynch is disreputable (perfectly possible) or some reputable dealers/mms do allow/encourage naked shorting.

47 posted on 05/17/2012 2:12:28 PM PDT by SAJ (What is the next tagline some overweening mod will censor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kenavi; SAJ; Hostage
Please give me ONE example of a company where TOTAL short sales, naked or borrowed, exceed total issued shares.

See Bloomberg: `Phantom Shares,' Failed Trades and Naked Shorts. Scroll down to the example of a company named Global Links. An investor set out to prove naked shorting. He had bought ALL 1.1 million of the shares of Global Links. Yet there was subsequently 50 million shares worth of trading activity. He wound up owning 111% of the company.

48 posted on 05/17/2012 2:23:03 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (If I can’t be persuasive, I at least hope to be fun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: SAJ
He who sells
what isn't hizn,
must make it good
or go to prison.

-Burma Shave

49 posted on 05/17/2012 2:50:09 PM PDT by Mycroft Holmes (<= Mash name for HTML Xampp PHP C JavaScript primer. Programming for everyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
In the above scenario there is no Paul and there are no shares. Peter just makes up shares out of thin air much like the Federal Reserve creates money out of thin air.

An important difference is that Peter doesn't get to keep the proceeds of the sale until he buys the shares back.

Unlike the Federal Reserve that can print and print and never has to buy anything back.

Overstock has been after Wall St. and the Naked Shorting issue for a long time

Mostly because the Overstock CEO is a nutbag. It's easier for him to attack naked short selling than to actually get his company to make a profit.

In other words certain bankster gangsters on Wall St. have launched short attacks on Overstock.com.

That's funny! They need to do a better job of forcing firms to cover these naked short positions, but the only gangsters attacking Overstock are the ones in Patrick Byrne's imagination.

50 posted on 05/17/2012 4:39:49 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

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