yer gonna need a big advance for that monster loss you have taken on OSTK already, why dont write another book entitled "HOW TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE TO DEATH"
Thanks for askin'. Doin' just fine. And this is one horse that has just left the gate. You won't believe what's next. Remember, we haven't even got to the naked shorting part. We are only up to manipulation.
Let me see if I have got this straight: SAC, a large, smart hedge fund, decides to "short" BVL and OSTK. It hires an analyst to write a "very negative" report on the companies. The delusional CEO of BVL says that the report is kept secret till the hedge fund can complete it's investment in the short. Now, common sense would tell one that SAC probably had several reports written from different sources. If I was going to take a major position in a short I would want a BULLISH report to make sure I was not deluding myself and had not missed anything. If the report is bearish and WRONG all of my competitors will go long, drive up the price and cost me a ton of money. There seems to be two delusional CEO's and I suspect that one is our friend "flytiger". I am not aware of a company that has actually made a profit with OSTK's business plan. Buy low, sell low, make it up in volume??? When "Daddy" left the board, that was "turn out the lights time". Just my two cents worth, SteveD
steveO... put down the crackpipe. you think flytiger is Patrick Byrnes? damn, i hope so cause i am hitting him up for a job right now. did you hear that fly??? i will need a 1/4 mil to start by the way.
Financial Services Forbes Online Naked Shorts Seeking Cover Liz Moyer, 03.29.06, 6:00 AM ET New York - Recent allegations of market manipulation against research firm Gradient Analytics and a variety of hedge funds seem certain to rekindle a separate, long-smoldering debate about so-called naked short-selling. Well, at least that's what Overstock.com Chief Executive Patrick Byrne would like to see. Since August, Byrne has waged a public-relations battle against Gradient, the hedge fund Rocker Partners and, basically, the whole Wall Street community. He alleges their participation in a vast conspiracy to drive down the shares of his company through the distribution of false information that allowed traders to profit from their short positions in Overstock.com. Biovail, the pharmaceutical company, joined this campaign last week with its own allegations that Gradient and hedge fund SAC Capital, among others, worked to distort its shares by disseminating false information about the company. But Byrne simultaneously has been trying to light a fire about a controversial phenomenon in trading known as naked short-selling, and his soapbox may have gotten bigger this week. Shorting is a common technique and is perfectly legal--borrowing a security, selling it immediately, then betting it will drop in price so it can be bought back at a cheaper price and used to replace the borrowed stock--the profit comes in pocketing the difference. But the seller of the security is supposed to actually borrow the shares before the settlement date of the transaction. The borrowing is done through a stock-lending program run by the Depositary Trust Clearing Corp. (DTCC), the New York-based company that handles the lion's share of the settlement and clearing of securities. Most of the time, settlement goes through without incident. But sometimes there is a failure to deliver. And some, like Byrne, contend that groups of traders are deliberately shorting stocks without actually borrowing the shares, in some cases "counterfeiting" shares where there are none available to be borrowed. Case in point, says Byrne, is his own company. In a statement last week, he said DTCC reported 8,970,394 Overstock.com shares on deposit, while Nasdaq reported short interest in Overstock.com of 9,578,481 shares for the same week. That means the total number of shares sold short exceeded the actual number of shares available, suggesting that some shares have been sold "naked." There is no publicly available data on trades that failed to be delivered. Byrne claims there are large numbers of unsettled trades in the system, exposing the market to risk. He hopes to use the higher profile he has gotten in his lawsuit against Gradient to raise awareness of the naked short issue. "We are facing systemic collapse," he said in an interview. The Gradient case (which is not about naked short-selling) is part of a broader campaign to reform trading rules, but "it was the first thread I could pull," Byrne said. The Securities and Exchange Commission put new regulations in place in January 2005 that are designed to better monitor the frequency of failures-to-deliver, but this Reg SHO has just raised more questions. Under Reg SHO, the stock exchanges report a daily roster of stocks that had failures-to-deliver of 10,000 shares or more and at least 0.5% of the issuer's outstanding shares for five-consecutive settlement days. These stocks are called "threshold securities." Overstock.com, along with shares of Martha Stewart's Omnicom Group, Netflix and NovaStar Financial, have appeared on the list almost since it began--a consistency that leaves a few onlookers puzzled. "You would think that the regulators would have taken a look at it," says Peter Chepucavage, the general counsel at Plexus Consulting and a former SEC staffer who helped draft Reg SHO. DTCC has been the target of 14 lawsuits by companies accusing it of facilitating naked shorting, though all but three have been dismissed. "There is little empirical evidence that widespread abuses such as naked short-selling are occurring," said Larry Thompson, the general counsel of DTCC, in a statement in January, rebutting some of these accusations. There are reasons why failure-to-deliver can be legitimate, such as glitches in transferring physical certificates, and DTCC says most of the time the trades are resolved within ten days. Regular settlement takes three days. There is a debate as to whether the DTCC should be more actively engaged in monitoring trading activity, though it says it is not a regulator, and that it is not its place to make sure the broker-dealers doing the trades complete the transactions properly (aka, actually borrow the shares, or complete the "buy-in."). DTCC reports failure-to-deliver data to regulators and stock markets but doesn't make that data public for fear it will be manipulated by traders. It has cooperated with several state investigations into manipulative short-selling. "Our role is to try to ensure that securities transactions are efficiently processed and settled," said a DTCC spokesman in a phone interview. "We don't have authority to force the buy-in." The SEC contends that it has been monitoring the situation, as have state securities administrators. But naked shorting continues to crop up. Earlier this month, the SEC settled civil charges against hedge funds Langley Partners, North Olmsted Partners and Quantico Partners in a case alleging that they engaged in illegal trading of unregistered securities in a scheme involving naked short-selling. In this case, the focus was more on the trading of the unregistered securities than on the naked short-selling. The stock exchanges "are closely scrutinizing all sizable fails, whether or not they reach the threshold securities levels, to assess whether broker-dealers are taking steps to close them out," the SEC said in its most recent policy statement, dated Feb. 16. Aggregate fails-to-deliver declined 30.5% from January 2005 to January 2006, the SEC says, and the list of threshold securities has been whittled back by 35%. But none of this has impressed people like Byrne, who uses sarcasm to make his point. "DTCC continues to maintain that their stock-borrow program does not permit the creation of new or counterfeit shares," he said in a statement last week. "I think that's good because, otherwise, this situation could be getting out of control."
BOYZ, The tiger's nose is a twitchen. For every knucklehead that beat me up, there are ten that know what I'm a sayin'. Start charting everyone of these so called "SHO" stocks. If ya gotta a inclin of acumen toward the technical side, ya allwill know what I mean. Herb, Jim, Jesse, Carol, ya killed us for many a year. Now, you're dead. Worse, the majority of this here country will know ya for the scum ya are. I can't help you with names. But fellas, if you ever wanted an edge.............................
You are still full of it ... http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Sto...C52A56}&source=blq/yhoo&dist=yhoo&siteid=yhoo
Better people than you have told me that. Why don't you turn on the Gradiant/Greenberg channel and enjoy some business television. And we haven't gotten to counterfeit stock yet. Must kill you, huh?
Today's Naked Short News It seems the SEC would like to crack down on naked shorting. The agency has sued three ex-brokers at a small Long Island brokerage for allegedly using an account at Refco in a naked short operation. That led to a collapse in the stock of software maker Sedona. The intent recently has been to chill naked shorting. I bet it is working to some extent.... EX-REFCO BROKERS CHARGED http://www.nypost.com/business/66497.htm