Open question from this rank amateur on Pat Bryne qualifications before I listen to his presentation. Did he ever work for the SEC, DTCC? How can he interpret law, (we know he can quote it) without a law degree. Are his education qualifications enough to work for a Goldman sachs, or any broker for that matter. Did he run a hedge fund? I don't see any finance degrees on his bio. Does he have his nasd licensees? We are long past the day and age of self taught "experts" being credible in a court of law. If he posts no experience (victimization is not a substitute for experience), no finance education, what qualifies him as an expert? How can he know how DTCC and the SEC operates if he never worked there? He only can know what he knows. Information he does know via what other people tell him or what he has read is not knowing. Why should I listen to him?
If I understand your set of standards, only someone who has worked for the SEC, the DTCC, has a law degree, the educational qualifications to work for Goldman Sachs or some other broker of your choosing and has a NASD license is someone that you would consider listening to. The idea that you are so discriminating you would only listen to some who is so highly credentialed, seems a little coy. That presumes that only certain types of highly educated individuals are worthy of attention. Strike Christ, Moses, Mohammed Ali and legions of others who have inspired great loyalty. Intellectual examination requires an open mind, it involves reading books others might desire to burn, entertaining concepts that may be counter to what you consider valid or against your interests, and developing the self-control to listen to ideas without making a judgment ahead of time. But that's only if you actually do want to come to an educated understanding of the world in which you live, and the powers that influence your life. Listening and accepting are distinctly different. The former is where you make yourself available to hear what someone says, the latter, that you conclude that what you've heard, you accept as true. One does not necessarily lead to the next but it does inspire fear in the hearts of fascists that the listening part may change minds. Listening is the first step towards being able to make up your own mind rather than being served up some third-party's version of what was said and what the truth is and what you should feel or think about it. Unless of course, your true intention is only to assist a third party in an effort to obscure the truth and cast suspicion on the messenger. Higher education, the very same kind of education required by the people you seem to have such regard for, actually consists of reading books and listening to what people say. You actually don't have to be in college, graduate school, law school or any other form of higher education, to read the same books and understand the material and concepts as thoroughly as an actual student might. Particularly if you are an intelligent well-educated person to begin with. There really no magic to the process. Sometimes victimization is the catalyst to pursue the most ambitious education about that which has victimized someone. History is filled with people who empowered themselves through scrupulously studying the methodology of their enemies and achieving victory against aggressors who seemed at first, to be infallible. In fact, the very dreams and aspirations our nation was built upon were inspired by self-determination. Even today, our imaginations are captured by the guy who comes from behind and upsets the apple cart, the kid who achieves success despite an impoverished childhood, the Olympian who wins against all odds. I say props to anyone who is going up against a system that's so patently corrupt. That said, I don't think anyone is attempting to force you to listen to anything you don't want to listen to. At least for the foreseeable short-term future, that liberty is still yours.
point. ................................................................................................................... you.
I get a sense the cynics didn't actually read or listen to Byrnes PPT. It's an education. I was cynical about this until about 30 minutes into it, slide 60 or so. I always though OSTK, BVF etc were just whining about their stocks performance because they couldnt manage their Companies. Naked shorting is like a highly leveraged form of shorting, so I assume returns were magnified when the going was good. Very engaging stuff. Names, places, dates, etc. Makes you wonder.
Well. fiat money is as real as the stock these guys are selling. but you're right. That's a different story
Well, frankly I try to avoid naked short selling not only due to it's illegality, but also because I look better with my clothes on.
Take a look at TASR this morning. Some orders got pushed to the next quarter. You see, if they can keep the pressure on, whenever the company slips up, even for an instant, they can lean, and TASR is profitable. I also heard NMX has a 15% neg rebate on it, and the joke on the Street is, no insiders are lending stock. The insinuation is these are all naked shorts. May be a little gem for you down the road a bit. When this is over, I really would like to know the mindset behind NMX, NYX, a couple others that just don't seem to fit the mold.