Re: Cox - If I ever have a run in with the SEC, I will be sure to use "Cox lied ..." (or whomever is in charge of the SEC at the time) as my legal defense. That should work wonders for me. Re: the second point, ... "whatever" ... Many of the "internet darlings" of the 90s had floats either side of 50 million shares. And their prices were all over the place. Many had achieved stock prices of $200 and $300/share over their IPO prices without ever being profitable. Low float stocks can be dangerous for both the long and the short. If you want to talk about low float stocks and trading, I will probably be open to a dialogue. If you want to talk about "fetuses" - you are on your own. Have a nice day.
http://sec.gov/about/oig/audit/2008/semiapr08.pdf Read it. Tell me Cox is fit to run a corner store. And I am having a good day. Thank you for your concern.
It was not my point that Cox was fit to run anything. I am far from a fan of the man. I included myself as part of the group of people that was very surprised at his pronouncement. If, however, a rule is deemed to be *subject to the interpretation of the SEC chairman* and ... Traders and funds take the time and make the effort to "feel out" the chairman's view on said rule and they all get the impression that he does not feel it is illegal (prior to the bloodbath in the key financials, of course) ... then ... Can anyone say from a *legal standpoint* that laws were broken? Not from a "moral" standpoint, not the way you or I think the financial world should work - (and, despite this debate, we may actually agree on a lot of "shoulds") - but legally? And I am certainly not including fabricated rumors in this question. They are obviously illegal and they are in a different category. Just the naked shorting that Cox said was okay before he said it was not okay. Stated another way, it would be a very complicated life for a trader or fund manager if they operated by the rules that they feel Cox *should have* made vs. the rulings that he has actually made. The SEC vs. TUCO threads were good examples. Many thought the SEC was out of line. I wasn't a big fan of the SEC decision. At the end of the day, however, my personal opinion on what the SEC *should have done* is irrelevant to how I operate over the near-term. If I join a firm that the SEC views similarly to TUCO, my capital is at risk. And if this firm gets hit by the SEC writing a letter to the SEC saying Cox is both a lair and unfit to run the SEC is not going to immediately free up the funds. If the SEC Chairman had signalled that a certian practice is not illegal - then that was the rule of the day, regardless of what we think the alternative "should have" been.
Rule 203(b)(3)âs close-out requirement provides that a participant of a clearing agency registered with the Commission28 must take immediate action to close out a fail to deliver position in a threshold security in the Continuous Net Settlement (âCNSâ)29 system that has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days by purchasing securities of like kind and quantity.30 In addition, if the failure to deliver has persisted for 13 consecutive settlement days, Rule 203(b)(3)(iii) of Regulation SHO, as originally adopted, prohibits the participant, and any broker-tdealer for which it clears transactions, including market makers, from accepting any short sale orders or effecting further short sales in he particular threshold security without borrowing, Naked short selling is illegal. There are exceptions provided to market makers in bona fide market maker activities. That is a small piece of the pie. Cox lied to cover his ass. Plain and simple. ANd he doesn't enforce his own edicts. Murder is illegal. However, a killing in self defense is defenseable. You don't see the cops going around saying "killing is legal."
What if it has persisted for only 12 consecutive settlement days? Is that an illegal short sale, as per the rule you cite?