OSTK ceo

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by SWScapital, Aug 17, 2005.

  1. ok.... you are calling what rocker did "traditional short selling"??? this whole thread has absolutely nothing, i repeat, nothing to do with traditional short selling. please clarify your statement...... i must be missing something.
     
    #671     May 20, 2006
  2. No, I think he's saying Rocker has killed traditional short selling. Rocker, Rat Boy, is a traditional short seller mechanically speaking. Should the charges be proven, he'll taint them all. Even if not, nobody is going to say he provided a public service. Remember, he has no Naked Shorts. The naked shorts are coming from the Prime Brokers. That being said, you know as well as I that Rocker had to know the locates weren't legit. Not his problem. The manipulation and Weiss are his problem.
    That being said, I've posted here before that he is going to tarnish the entire short process which isn't good, but that won't matter. Look at all the press from the hedgies. Short selling is good, never mentioned naked shorting. They know they shit the bed. The public is going to hang them. I think BSH is on to something. The landscape will change. You know politicians. Oil companies gouge. Where were they with handouts when oil was $12. When it was 12, where was the legislation to guarantee supply? Same old. This time the same. They ignore until we force it down their throat.

    remember, this will morph into jobs. When you see the politicians coming out after more Rico, it'll be Wall St. is destroying jobs. I've been told that. Don't think so. Look at the tact Weiss took. You'll destroy the jobs of 250 people. Sorry , Milberg, you did that. It wasn't Elliot Ness. And you know, you should pay for that.
    See today's journal. Ohio has already pulled a suit from them.
     
    #672     May 20, 2006
  3. What if I were to tell you a certain NY Political Hack was presented with much of the information you have read here in the past six months, probably in much more detail, but refused to participate? Could you guess the reason? The Thlot Pickens. We're making Russia look like an exemplary democracy.

    Read these in order please.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fi-milberg20may20,0,3498824.story?coll=la-headlines-politics

    http://www.nysun.com/article/16313 from 6/05


    http://www.nysun.com/article/33031

    I do believe this the first taste of the wake this whole mess will create.
     
    #673     May 20, 2006
  4. newtoet

    newtoet

    Is this thread helping you make any of your money back?

    Buy the high, sell the low!!! And blame everyone but yourself!!!!!
     
    #674     May 20, 2006
  5. Here we go again. Making some good progress, and another socially challenged neandrathal comes out of some cave.

    the answer is no. But as I have pointed out a long time ago, this is about right/wrong and what is left behind.

    As if I owe you an explanation, which I don't, I didn't know anything about Overstock until Aug. I do have a rather large position in a stock that I believe will be a tremendous beneficiary of this phenomenon, but I have never talked about it publically.

    Go to the joke thread. There are some one liners there you might be able to handle. Now be nice, or I won't.
     
    #675     May 20, 2006
  6. Blue Horse Shoe analysis appears to be nuts on............

    http://www.nysun.com/article/33128

    Justice Department Eyes Overstock.com Fight



    By DAN DORFMAN
    May 22, 2006


    Federal regulators are stepping up their intervention into a colorful Wall Street battle featuring a prominent short seller with an uncanny ability to consistently entice the press to lambaste companies in which he holds short sales (a bet the stock price will decline).

    The short seller is David Rocker of hedge fund Rocker Partners, and he is battling against the beleaguered CEO and chairman of online retailer Overstock.com of Salt Lake City, Patrick Byrne. Both companies are already under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    .
    There is more. I'll see if I can get it later.
     
    #676     May 22, 2006
  7. Here is the whole thing. First real reference to the Press in a while. That will be key.



    Justice Department Eyes Overstock.com Fight

    By DAN DORFMAN
    May 22, 2006

    NY Sun
    Federal regulators are stepping up their intervention into a colorful Wall
    Street battle featuring a prominent short seller with an uncanny ability to
    consistently entice the press to lambaste companies in which he holds short
    sales (a bet the stock price will decline).

    The short seller is David Rocker of hedge fund Rocker Partners, and he is
    battling against the beleaguered CEO and chairman of online retailer
    Overstock.com of Salt Lake City, Patrick Byrne. Both companies are already
    under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

    Also involved are select members of the business press, including some from
    Dow Jones & Company, who have repeatedly pounded Overstock.com with negative
    stories.

    The Justice Department is inquiring into the situation, having already
    discussed it with regulators from at least one securities exchange and
    possibly Overstock.com, The New York Sun has confirmed. The Justice
    Department usually investigates Wall Street cases in conjunction with the
    SEC.

    If it, too, commences an investigation - which it may have already done - it
    raises the prospect of potential criminal action if warranted. The Justice
    Department declined comment, but a regulatory source confirmed its interest
    in the matter.

    It all stems from a suit Overstock.com filed last August that charged that
    Rocker Partners, which had shorted its stock, had conspired with Gradient
    Analytics, an independent research outfit based in Scottsdale, Ariz., to
    denigrate its business for a profit. In its suit, which also includes
    Gradient, Overstock.com alleged the research firm had "knowingly served as a
    shill for Rocker Partners." The extent of the damages to be sought could top
    $1 billion, an Overstock.com attorney, Wes Christian, said.(Rocker Partners
    recently changed its name to Copper River Partners to reflect Mr. Rocker's
    planned retirement from the firm in January 2007.) After the company's suit
    was filed, Mr. Byrne said Overstock.com was contacted by seven federal and
    state agencies. He declined to name them or to comment whether the Justice
    Department was included. He would only say: "This is not just an SEC
    investigation."

    Both Rocker Partners, which manages $1.2 billion in assets, and Gradient
    have denied any wrongdoing.

    "We're launching missiles at the bad guys," Mr. Byrne told the Sun. "They've
    turned this into a war and I'm going on the defensive." He added: "These
    guys have even hired private eyes who have investigated my girlfriend." He
    described Gradient as "a hatchet for hire shop" that would do negative
    reports for Mr.
    Rocker, allow him to edit the copy, and then hold the report, enabling him
    to take a (short) position before it was issued. "The independent research
    is not independent; it is dictated by Mr. Rocker," he said.

    Mr. Byrne, who said he was confronting "a closed circle of corruption," also
    charged that Gradient had taken a short position in a hedge fund it covertly
    operated.
    "The SEC has spoken to our witnesses," he said, at least some of whom he
    described as former Gradient employees, who he suggested could validate his
    claims.

    Mr. Rocker did not respond to calls seeking comment.

    A public relations spokeswoman for Gradient, Karen Hinton, characterized Mr.
    Byrne's allegations as "old and tired and completely unfounded." Asked
    whether Gradient had received any queries from the Justice Department, Ms.
    Hinton said, "We do not comment on requests from government agencies."
    On a related matter, Mr. Byrne complained about the enormous number of
    "phantom shares" of Overstock.com in the market, a reference to the
    additional fictitious shares created by naked short selling. That refers to
    the practice of selling shares, often electronically, that the seller
    doesn't own and haven't been borrowed.
    Mr. Byrne cited several examples of overseas investors having bought the
    company's shares, which have yet to be delivered many months since the
    purchases. There are 20 million Overstock.com shares outstanding, and Mr.
    Byrne figures there are two to three times that number if you include the
    phantom shares.

    He says many other companies are also afflicted with the problem of
    fictitious shares, which he views as a major Wall Street scandal.

    The SEC tells me such action is essentially illegal, although market makers
    are permitted to engage in such activity under special situations.

    Mr. Byrne, who owns 7 million Overstock.com shares, also took pot shots at
    the press, citing a group of reporters who, he said, "could be counted on to
    consistently attack companies that Mr. Rocker is short." Surprisingly, one
    veteran Dow Jones staffer told me he thought some of his colleagues had gone
    overboard in allowing Mr. Rocker to repeatedly use them as attack dogs
    against Overstock.com. In contrast, another Dow Jones staffer who has
    written negatively about Overstock.com praised Mr. Rocker. Both declined to
    be named.

    In its investigation, the SEC subpoenaed journalists from several news
    organizations, including Dow Jones and CNBC, but later buckled under
    editorial pressure and withdrew its request. It did, though, reserve the
    right to question the journalists.

    Overstock.com, which has not had a profitable year since its 1999 inception,
    has not escaped the battle unscathed. It recently received an SEC subpoena
    requesting documents related to its accounting policies, communications with
    analysts, and trading in the company's stock. Mr. Byrne minimized the
    importance of the SEC subpoena, describing it as "a laundry list"
    of what the SEC normally asks for.

    Shares of Overstock.com, down sharply from their 52-week high of $48.65,
    closed Friday at $22.22.
     
    #677     May 22, 2006
  8. I don't think he liked it.


    Thursday, May 25, 2006
    Crackpot Victory in Utah

    The crackpot anti-naked-shorting conspiracy campaign scored a major victory
    yesterday, one that will be cheered by every incompetent CEO, stock promoter
    and boiler-room thief in the country. Boys, Utah is in your corner!

    The Salt Lake City Tribune reported today that the Utah state legislature
    passed a bill that takes aim at naked short-sellers -- a "menace" that, for
    the most part, exists mainly in the press releases of crummy companies and
    the imagination of conspiracy theorists. Note the delicious irony -- a state
    notorious for real stock fraud passed a bill aimed at curbing nonexistent
    stock fraud.

    Not surprisingly, this bill was heavily pushed by Overstock.com CEO Patrick
    Byrne, who has feverishly sought to divert attention from his company's poor
    performance by whining about the supposed naked-shorting of his company's
    shares.

    The problem with the bill is that it doesn't target naked shorting per se.
    It targets "fails to deliver" securities, which can occur for many reasons
    unrelated to short-selling. However, the legislature apparently felt that
    was of no importance in its eagerness to please Byrne and the "counterfeit
    securities" loons.

    The legislation itself -- you can look at it here
    http://www.le.state.ut.us/~2006S3/htmdoc/sbillhtm/SB3004.htm -- has all the
    usual loopholes, and I'm not really sure how much it matters or whether it
    will withstand court review.

    The important thing is not the bill -- or even that the Utah state
    legislature has made a fool of itself -- but rather that a campaign that is
    seeking to misinform America's investors has scored a major victory.



    http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/
     
    #678     May 25, 2006
  9. June 9, 2006





    NYSE Probes Whether Short Sellers
    Fueled Steep Decline in Vonage Shares

    By RANDALL SMITH and SHAWN YOUNG
    June 9, 2006; Page C1

    Securities regulators have launched an investigation into how short sellers may have played a role in the steep decline in the stock price of Internet phone carrier Vonage Holdings Corp. since its initial public offering last month, people familiar with the situation say.

    The regulatory unit of the New York Stock Exchange sent a letter to Wall Street securities firms yesterday asking questions about how the dealers may have facilitated short sales, according to someone who had a copy of the letter. The letter asked that the information be provided no later than Wednesday, June 21.

    Because some short sellers are effectively betting that a stock will decline, companies sometimes blame them when their share price slides. A spokeswoman for Vonage, based in Holmdel, N.J., declined to comment on any short selling in its stock. In a short sale, a trader or investor sells borrowed stock in hopes of buying it back later at a lower price.


    Another regulator, the National Association of Securities Dealers, last week initiated a look at other aspects of the Vonage IPO, according to people familiar with the deal. The stock has fallen as much as 32% since the IPO, stirring controversy partly because 13.5% of the $531 million stock sale was earmarked for Vonage telephone customers.

    Some of the NYSE regulatory questions in the letter appear aimed at determining whether dealers or their customers may have violated rules curbing the practice of "naked short selling," or selling shares without having them available or knowing how they can be provided to the buyer when the transaction settles after a few days.

    The rules against naked shorting were tightened in mid-2004 by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and took effect in January 2005. They put new requirements on exchanges to police trading. As an SEC official noted at the time, naked shorting could drive down a stock price in an "abusive or manipulative way."

    Founded in 2001, Vonage is among the first Internet calling start-ups, offering consumers cut-rate calls using their regular phones linked to a high-speed Internet connection. But Vonage's steep losses, heavy spending and well-funded cable and phone-company competitors have made many analysts and investors skeptical about its prospects.

    Many of the NYSE questions were focused on the first day of trading in Vonage on May 24. That day the stock fell 13% from its IPO price of $17 a share to a 4 p.m. price of $14.85 on the NYSE on volume of 33.8 million shares. The stock price hit a 4 p.m. low of $11.63 June 1 and at 4 p.m. yesterday was down 20 cents on the day to $11.79.

    On the first day of trading, more than five million shares were sold short, according to someone familiar with the IPO. The bulk of such short-sale orders were placed early in the day, just as the stock began trading.

    Other NYSE questions asked for information about failures to deliver stock after the offering. The questions specifically sought information about trades by prime-brokerage customers. Prime brokerage is a booming business in which Wall Street dealers provide services including stock lending to hedge funds, some of which use borrowed stock for short sales.

    In recent days, Vonage has appeared on an NYSE list of companies that have significant numbers of trades that haven't settled on time, a list mandated by the new short-selling rules. Such failures to settle can be associated with naked short selling. Once a stock appears on the list, traders have 13 days to settle their trades.

    Dealers are allowed to execute short sales on behalf of customers that don't actually hold the borrowed shares if the dealers have "reasonable grounds" to believe the stock can be borrowed by the time the stock is due to be delivered, according to a Big Board Web site.

    However, under the new SEC rules, dealers executing short sales based on a customer's assurance that a stock had been "located" elsewhere must document the customer's source, and whether the same customer's prior assurances resulted in delivery failures.

    Some Vonage customers say the stock's plunge was aggravated by missteps by the Internet phone company and the offering's underwriters. Some customers have threatened to refuse to pay for shares they pledged to buy at the $17 IPO price. Many questioned why the price was set so high, particularly as the market weakened in the weeks leading up to the offering.

    But Vonage and the underwriters -- led by Citigroup Inc., Deutsche Bank AG and UBS AG -- have responded that the deal was more than five times oversubscribed.

    Write to Randall Smith at randall.smith@wsj.com1 and Shawn Young at shawn.young@wsj.com2

    URL for this article:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114981099992975619.html


    Hyperlinks in this Article:
    (1) mailto:randall.smith@wsj.com
    (2) mailto:shawn.young@wsj.com
    (3) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114962335948272932.html
    (4) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114922391790669648.html


    Copyright 2006 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.
     
    #679     Jun 9, 2006
  10. I thought I saw it all until this. What greed. I guess 20mm in fees just doesn't cut it.

    Corzine is now Gov of NJ, his treasurer is a GS buddy, and I've got friends in NJ knocking on their door. I think WS shit the bed w/ this one.
     
    #680     Jun 9, 2006