maybe you should think of why everyone in the worl d wants to short the shitty stock you have been pumping since he talked about a "sith" lord driving his stock down, why not take logic and think of why a dead beat loser would accuse a fictionary character of driving his stock down?
Overstock Short Interest Now 107% of Float on Deposit at DTCC Friday March 24, 6:18 pm ET SALT LAKE CITY, March 24 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Overstock.com® (Nasdaq: OSTK - News) today reports that per the DTCC's March 10 Security Position Listing, there are 8,970,394 Overstock.com shares on deposit at the DTCC and that the NASDAQ reported short interest in Overstock.com of 9,578,481 shares for the same week. Thus, Overstock.com's reported short interest is now 107% of the shares available to be shorted. (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20030520/LATU020LOGO-a ) Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne said, "The decimal is not misplaced -- we have cracked the speed of light. It is my understanding that some shareholders (e.g., pension funds) might have asked that their shares not be made available to shorts, thus reducing the 8.97 million shares the DTCC has available for lending. I also understand that the 9.58 million stated short interest does not include failed-to-deliver short sales, failed-to-deliver long sales, another category that the DTCC now cryptically calls, 'open positions,' or lending outside the DTCC (i.e., 'ex-clearing'), which only two guys on Staten Island understand. Thus the real ratio is anyone's guess, but it's somewhere between 107% and infinity. On a positive note, the DTCC continues to maintain that their Stock Borrow Program does not permit the creation of new or counterfeit shares: I think that's good, because otherwise this situation could be getting out of control." About Overstock.com Overstock.com, Inc. is an online "closeout" retailer, offering discount, brand-name merchandise for sale over the Internet. The company offers its customers an opportunity to shop for bargains conveniently, while offering its suppliers an alternative inventory liquidation distribution channel. Overstock.com, headquartered in Salt Lake City, is a publicly traded company listed on the NASDAQ National Market System and can be found online at http://www.overstock.com. Overstock.com is a registered trademark of Overstock.com, Inc. All other trademarks are the property of their respective companies. This press release contains certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Such forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding cracking the speed of light, whether the short position is out of control, and such other risks as identified in our Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005, and all our subsequent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which contain and identify important factors that could cause the actual results to differ materially from those contained in our projections or forward-looking statements. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source: Overstock.com
Wow. Do your knuckles drag on the grouind? Is that what you think this is about? From now on, just pretend nothing I say here has nothing to do with you. Now get busy, and get that short up to 10mm for me. Do you, Senore Moron, remember when I posted that OSTK was pulling certs? What happened? It is my understanding that some shareholders (e.g., pension funds) might have asked that their shares not be made available to shorts, thus reducing the 8.97 million shares the DTCC has available for lending.
This is about all of us. We all participate in the markets, and the fairer it is, the better chance we have to succeed or fail based on our own merits!!! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 25, 2006 Op-Ed Contributor A Fine That Fits the Crime By GARY WEISS THE mutual fund scandals, which exploded with a thunderclap of attention in September 2003, are winding down. You might even say they are over. The more or less final act came earlier this month, when Bear Stearns agreed to a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission under which it would pay $250 million to investors for its alleged fund-related transgressions. If one represents "yelling at customers" and 10 is "stealing their money," what Bear Stearns did was a solid six on the scale of Wall Street improprieties. Professional traders, mostly at hedge funds, had engaged in rapid-fire trading of otherwise innocent-looking mutual funds. This seesaw damaged the funds' net asset values and thus the IRA's and 401(k)'s of small investors. By some accounts, traders had been doing that kind of thing for many years, until regulators and, particularly, Eliot Spitzer, the New York State attorney general, nabbed them. Through it all, regulators have relied mainly, though not exclusively, on monetary sanctions. Bear Stearns's wasn't even the largest â Bank of America holds the record at $675 million. But while these large "fines," as they are usually called in the news media, are reassuring, it's arguable at best whether they mean very much to the companies being penalized. Just as the hedge fund giant Long-Term Capital Management was too big to fail in 1998, when it was bailed out to keep from torpedoing the entire financial system, the biggest Wall Street firms are simply too large to be effectively punished. At least, not by the kind of sanctions meted out to Bear Stearns. To begin with, Bear Stearns did not pay a "fine." The company will pay $250 million in "disgorgements and penalties." The penalty part was just $90 million. The other $160 million consisted of restitution, with interest, of profits gained by abetting the illicit trading from 1999 to 2003. As is typical in S.E.C. settlements, Bear Stearns agreed to pay all this money without admitting or denying the allegations. Whatever you call it, the simple fact is that a firm the size of Bear Stearns can easily afford to pay that kind of money. Sure, the $250 million comprises nearly half of the company's net income for the first quarter. But keep in mind that this is not "income" in the sense of the word used by most people. The corporate term of art describes (broadly speaking) revenue in excess of expenses â what most people would call "money tucked away for a rainy day." If you had committed a crime and as punishment you had to give up half of what you would normally put in a savings or retirement account over a three-month period â well, would you complain? I certainly wouldn't. I'd sign a settlement like that, particularly if I didn't have to say I did anything wrong. When compared to what most people would define as "income," the penalty shrinks to a hair under one-fifteenth (one-14.6th, to be exact) of Bear Stearns's gross revenue of $3.6 billion during the first quarter. For most households struggling to make ends meet on $100,000 a year, a fine of one-14.6th of three months' pay would come to about $1,712. That's about, oh, maybe 15 unpaid New York City parking tickets? The penalty has the same unimpressive quality when compared to Bear Stearns's total wealth. The company's shareholders' equity is just shy of $11.2 billion. Divided into that sum, the $250 million shrinks way down to one-44.7th of the total. Now really, if you were caught doing something allegedly illegal, and had a net worth of, say, $200,000, would you object to a fine of about $4,500? To be fair, I should point out that Bear Stearns did more than just agree to pay some money that it didn't admit owing from all the things it didn't admit doing. The firm also agreed, among other things, to hire a consultant to ensure that all the stuff it didn't admit doing never happens again. A real shellacking â in the form of, say, a meaningful fine â was never in the cards, and for good reason. While it's easy to scoff at the size of the penalties, it cannot be disputed that Bear Stearns, as a premier bond trader, stock titan and derivatives powerhouse, is far too large to risk driving out of business. The only other alternative would be jail terms. But they carry their own disadvantages, not the least of which is that mutual fund trading transgressions are not on the same level of perfidy as, say, boiler-room thievery. So we are left with an essentially meaningless penalty, no admission of guilt â and, in all likelihood, a Wall Street that is no less likely to push against the envelope of propriety. What's needed is some pain. The S.E.C. needs to make Wall Street firms wince when they do something wrong. The same kind of hurt you or I feel when we have to trudge down to the impound lot to get our cars out of hock for those 15 unpaid parking tickets. An admission of guilt would be a good start. Then private litigants stand a far better chance of collecting. Call it the regulatory equivalent of a tow truck. Congress could help by passing a provision of tax-relief legislation, now before a House-Senate conference, that would make it harder for firms to take write-offs from settlements with government agencies. Market observers speak of a "cycle of scandal" on Wall Street â a pattern of transgressions recurring periodically, often as a coda to bull markets, undeterred by an inadequate regulatory response. Until regulators start making errant firms feel some real pain, the next Wall Street scandal is not a question of if, but when. Gary Weiss is the author of the forthcoming "Wall Street Versus America: The Rampant Greed and Dishonesty That Imperil Your Investments." Copyright 2006The New York Times Company
No one wants to come out to play? How come the journalists invited to be on 60 minutes didn't go on? I thought they were all about free speech. I s 60 minutes charging? I wonder who they were? How come a Biovail/SAC story comes out and OSTK goes up $1.50 on the open? Why are more OSTK shares reported short than exist at the DTC? How does this end? Come on, I'm ready for my weekly ass whuppin from you guys. Be ready for a shitload of major press. Sorry I was off by two or three weeks.
i played. i took 10 ostk calls over the weekend just in case 60 min said something to make the stock pop. i made 50cents on them.
The 60 minutes piece was just a rehash of all the same theories that you've presented before. Maybe it brings more public awareness to the issue, but in the end the complaints are being presented by a company that can't run its own business properly and so it has to draw attention from its real problems.
ratboy88 Registered: Dec 2003 Posts: 1952 03-23-06 07:10 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote from dwl603: nice reversal on OSTK today time to short this POS! -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- well it has had a nice move... let us know where you short it dipshit. good luck did you cover at 32 ???
Come on. Take your asswhippin' like a man. I ate crow for three times a day for months, and I knew what I was talking about........ For those of you that remember Dandy Don......... Turn out the lights......... The party's over. I really wish no one harm. It doesn't help anything. But as Ron White says......... You can't fix stupid.
Man you are full of yourself. You really think that a rehash of previous news on 60 minutes allows you to declare victory? Why don't you just shut up until you have something substantial.