| | Register
Who is Bob O'Brien?
Sanity Check Archive
Click Here to see Bob's Old Sanity Check articles.
About our Blogs

Blogs found on this website represent the opinion of the author. For more information please visit our terms of use.
Funny Bunny
Looking for something a little lighter?
Catch Bob's more irreverent and amusing pieces in his Funny Bunny Blog.

SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 8/3/2006 8:45 AM

NOTE: I removed the section lambasting Carol for her credulous take on OTCBB, as there isn't enough data to conclusively hang her. That will have to wait until next month. In the meantime, we can all wonder aloud at the complete absence of any real market making activity in so many OTCBB stocks - they don't have any short interest, thus nobody is shorting to make a market. Who would have thought that would be the case in so many of these companies?

----------------

There were a slew of articles from the NY press over the last day or so, all trumpeting that Mack is innocent (says he is, anyway - huge surprise, that, versus him saying "'twere a fair cop, constable!").

Why is this of interest?

Because the SEC is leaking the info. This is an ongoing SEC investigation, and the SEC is leaking info to the press to bolster Mack's reputation.

Now, why is that appropriate, when they fought so hard to keep Aguirre from leaking any info? It almost seems as though the agency is spinning the facts to protect Mack, using a double standard of favoritism. Ordinarily, the SEC NEVER discusses their investigations. Never. Ever.

But now all of a sudden the papers are full of accounts from the SEC, which is leaking info like a sieve.

How can the SEC have one set of rules for the companies it regulates, and another set of rules when dealing with wealthy, powerful Wall Street moguls? Doesn't that seem at odds with the notion of a nation under the rule of law, evenly applied? When did the SEC take its rulebook out of the pages of Animal Farm, where some pigs are more equal than others?

Anyone smell a rat here?

A really large rat?

---------------------  

The last 3 or 4 articles in the NY Post, slamming FFH, never make it onto the internet version of that fine publication.

I found that very curious, and didn't understand why that would be. Why publish negative articles in the paper edition, but keep them off the web?  

I have my theory, but won't bore you with it.   I did ask the author, and his response was that he doesn't know - he just writes them.  

Anyone have any theories or explanations? I can't recall the last time I saw something like this...  
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (54)
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 12:22 PM
Bob, guess what?

PYST -- PayStar Corp trading at 0.0003

Outstanding Shares: 1,164,248,087 as of 2006-04-05

http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/company_profile.jsp?symbol=PYST

11 million shares trading a day is a pimple of the outstanding 1,164,248,087 shares
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 12:25 PM
11,000,000 shares times .0003 is $3,300 Bob

Bad example
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 3:09 PM
http://nakedshortlie.blogspot.com/2005/04/zann-corp.html
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Zann Corp
Capital Raised: $ 25.57 million
Capital Burned: $ 27.13 million
Previous Executive Compensation: $312,500 EACH for the Chairman and Vice Chairman in 2001

Zann Corp is another not so exceptional company that draws our attention only because of its President and CEO, Robert C. Simpson. Mr. Simpson, you may recall, is the gentleman who bought all of the Global Links shares after their reverse split.

You may also recall that Mr. Simpson expressed concern about the existence of an issue of preferred stock that Global Links might have that would block him from taking control of Global Links. It happens that Mr. Simpson had good cause to be concerned, for he is the owner of Zann Corp's Series C Preferred Stock. Not to be outdone by the piddling voting rights of Global Links' Series B issue, these "C" shares are entitled to one hundred votes per share for any matter brought to the common stockholders.

Mr. Simpson put those voting rights to good use on 2005 April 4. That was the day that it was announced that Zann Corp's articles of incorporation were being amended to increase the number of authorized shares of common stock from 11.4 million to 4 billion and to give permission to the board of directors to implement a reverse split of up to 1:350 over the next year.

The best part of this announcement can be found near the end.

"Dr. Simpson will have the power to approve the proposed corporate actions without the concurrence of any of our other stockholders.

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR A PROXY AND YOU ARE REQUESTED NOT TO SEND US A PROXY. [The all caps is their emphasis, not mine.]

We appreciate your continued interest in Zann Corp."

Who could possibly continue to be interested in a company that so brazenly runs roughshod over their shareholders?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Selene on 8/3/2006 3:12 PM
Sherman And Cathy Together
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 3:25 PM
"Who could possibly continue to be interested in a company that so brazenly runs roughshod over their shareholders?"

I don't know, but if they decide to buy, they need to get their shares as their cash was real. The pedigree of the company is not important as the cash is REAL.

A common scam is for hedge funds to create their own death spiral. They will naked sell millions of shares in a company that they know needs money. This will create a downward spiral that will scare away other investors. When the company is desperate for cash, they approach the company and using the money they sucked out of the market, do a private placement - the company unwittingly covers the fails.

The harder they slam the company, the less likely they can get investment elsewhere and the more likely the company will do the private placement.

If the company refuses to issue shares, then the fund is stuck and will put a "lid" on the stock. They can't afford to let the stock rise as the collateral requirement will also rise. They need to just overwhelm the daily buying pressure to keep the stock at the target level.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 3:36 PM
Bear,

Funny thing about that Capital Raised - Capital Burned lines. That is what you are expected to do with eth capital you raise - spend it. now the amounts seem staggering but then again, everything nowadays costs money.

Would i invest - No but that too is not the issue.

Shares sold --- Shares delivered. If they are not equal that means Wall Street is playing games and committing as big a fraud as the companies you present. Plain and simple. It is called predatory.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By gregcable2002 on 8/3/2006 3:36 PM
Mr Simpson is a shady person,no doubt,thats not the issue,oh,I get it,the counterfieters are doing us a service by killing off these scams,is that where this is going Bear?Settle ALL the trades in the time frame mandated by law and we won't have a problem,until that happens we'll be here there and everywhere,growing in numbers by the thousands.Can't wait till court day,and election day.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By news on 8/3/2006 3:42 PM
I don’t short otcbb but I know plenty of people who claim they do. Really I have no proof of huge short positions on the otcbb none of us do. I know some people on boards who claim to have much higher short positions than the reported interest though.

Don’t forget according to those numbers over 5000 (out of 6000) stocks have less than 1% short volume. That number does not tie directly into the large amount of bear funds there are. My point here is I don’t see how a 1% short interest on almost all otcbb stocks can support the massive hedge fund industry as it exists today.
This large amount of bear (hedge) funds almost solely exists to short the otcbb. I don’t see how they could make such massive profits by shorting with such small positions on the OTCBB. The bear funds that short otcbb are non nasd regulating. How and where they short (maybe Frankfurt, Australia, Canada) we do not know.

I do have some ancillary proof and it exists because of regulation SHO. There are a lot of otcbb stocks that are currently on or have been on SHO. If the reported short interest is accurate then there would be no need to EVER naked short ANY otcbb stock. That would be because almost all OTCBB issues have many millions and millions of available shares (much much more than the larger exchanges) that could be borrowed at a moments notice according to that list anyway. To only be short 80k or 10k on a stock that has 150mil or 200mil shares goes against the law of averages.

That and if you look at the worst stock ever made (pacel) pclo as a case study. All they do is dilute and reverse split I think they have issued billions of shares and reverse split 100 times. According to that list short interest in pcel is 500!!!!
Average Daily Share Volume 4,425,253
Short 580 shares!
To not short this stock heavily is a horrible move since it is a guaranteed money maker short.
There are many many other horribly criminal stocks like this with minuscule short interest and it just boggles the mind.

I cannot believe that number!
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By browntrout on 8/3/2006 3:55 PM
Bear- You will point to anything that disparages the companies being trashed by naked shorting. The point is it is illegal and you can't justify the crime no matter how many weaknesses that you pointed out in the companies damaged by naked shorting. The recent OTC and Pinksheet short list is a fraud and everyone knows it. There are still huge short positions that exist that are not being reported whether ex-clearing or intentional omission from reporting the positions by the BD's. Go spread your worthless crap back on the Yahoo chatboards where you usually do JB.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Ommission of FFH Articles By kevin on 8/3/2006 4:03 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_A._Cohen
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Ommission of FFH Articles By browntrout on 8/3/2006 4:13 PM
Bobo- The SEC is doing the only thing they can do with Mack's investigation; whitewash it. They had to do it after Aquirre went public. Now they can say they looked into it and there was no merit to it. I wonder what guy in the White House initially pulled the investigation and got Aguirre fired. Could be a great cover-up story here for a new Watergate type exposure......Hey aren't you writing a book or three? Add this to your list! Aguirre mentioned naked shorting being disregarded by the SEC in his letter to the Senators. How do you spell Pulizter?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By bobo on 8/3/2006 5:07 PM
Bear: You clearly have a problem with reading comprehension, as I described why I deleted the section with Dave's post at the top of this bog. In the future, if I delete something on my blog, and explain why, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from reposting it. It's rude, and will get you deleted.

Clear?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Little Bo peep on 8/3/2006 9:52 PM
Bunny,
Can you scan the articles into your computer and then post them? I would like to read them, it will just be more evidence of the FRAUD. I would think there are some lawyers out there that are not afraid to confront the intentional leaks as they attempt to spin the FACTS. All parties involved.

The "EGO's" still think they can COVER UP the shit.

It doesn't really matter who has there nose up Mr John Macks ass.

Unless all of the government people are all liars the truth will be made public. I think there must be at least 5% of elected offices honest. The problem is that 5% could be tangled in the FRAUD web because the company giants have their fingers in it. Only they know if it is from cheating or ignorance. I think those in it because of ignorance are scared shitless. Kind of like if you are an employee and know shit on your boss, but understand if you tell anyone about the boss, your ass is on the street holding a tin cup. Understand?

We now all know who owns the media sources and content. We are learning who owns the banks and brokers. Most of the shit is because of the "EGO's" being in bed with offshore. Some very big political players have shit all over their fingers.
The question is will they try to protect them from a fall?
What type of man or woman are you? You run a business with a partner and you know your partner is a liar and cheat. Do you try to cover his ass because he is your friend and made you lots of money or
do what is right?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Johnboy on 8/3/2006 12:52 PM
Funny how Ameritrade and the other big houses have started to limit online buying (not selling though) in certain stocks on the pinks and OTCBB in the last 2 days. Their explanation: We are trying to protect investors since they have spotted suspicious trading in these stocks.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 12:54 PM
Paystar off the SHO list according to buyins.net

PayStar Corporation (OTC: PYST) is rapidly becoming a diverse Investment Holding company in the self-serve industries of financial self-service products and kiosk technologies. Recent divestitures have given PayStar significant stock assets in Kiosk and prepaid ATM debit card (stored-value) companies. PayStar will continue to entertain divesting existing company division assets, while seeking out strategic Investments in the unbanked and self-serve related private and public companies. With 37.62 million shares outstanding and an undisclosed short position, there is no longer a failure to deliver in shares of PYST.

http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/news.jsp?url=fis_story.asp%3Ftextpath%3DCOMTEX%5Cmt%5C2006%5C08%5C03%5C81574505.html%26clientid%3D168%26provider%3DM2_COMMUNICATIONS&symbol=PYST
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By rtway1 on 8/3/2006 8:03 PM
Browntrout, you are to be applauded for exposing the biggest fraud of the day. I thought I was the only one that seen the likeness of Jb in all these postings. Well done, and you brought everything back into focus where are eyes are on the issue not a singular person or stock. Thanks to Bobo for being fair and always a overseer. The problem still remains with the SEC and are efforts should be at a showdown with these bastards. Boston tea party anyone!
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Ben on 8/3/2006 9:54 PM
Bobo. About Fairfax Financial (FFH): Very simple. They are paid to slam this company by SAC Capital and David Rocker.Paid crooks.NY POST = JOURNALIST BULLSHIT.Not publish on internet because of the lawsuit.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By commonsense on 8/4/2006 12:37 AM
Bob/Patchie...
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By commonsense on 8/4/2006 1:51 AM
sorry, hit return in error earlier.

Bob (and Patchie)....Been following this from the sidelines for a long time. Never felt the need to post 'till now. Why am I posting? I think bear is making valid observations that you don't like hearing.

I think you're missing SOME of bears point. OTC/BB/Pinks are a breeding ground for fraud (I mailed the SEC about this - no reply, SURPRISE). You are separating NSS from the underlying fundamentals of a company. Fair point in normal circumstances. However, by using examples of OTC/BB/Pinks in your camapign, you are damaging your credibility, because the level of P&D or outright fraud is currently running at an almost unprecedented level. Stick with NASDAQ or NYSE stocks as examples of NSS - otherwise you leave youself open to the accusation of having another undisclosed agenda.

The argument that whether you receive a share or "chit" in your a/c for an OTC stock is 'the issue', and not addressing the victims who were suckered into a P&D or fraud, is like saying "I don't care, F**K them, nothing to do with our campaign, just make sure it's a share and not a chit, ok". You, Bob, can counter-argue that you can only fight one battle at a time - well I'd argue... stop using OTC/BB/Pinks in your fight because it's weakening your case! BIG TIME.

Unintentionally (I hope) your agenda is partially intertwined with P&Ders and you need to face this fact, rather than bury your head in the sand. At the end of the day, whether it's P&D of fraud, the truth will always come home to roost, i.e. a decimated share price.

Just an opinion FWIW, and for the record I believe NSS is a scandal, although if I could NSS an obvious fraud, I would. Fraud/P&D and NSS are two sides of the same coin. Don't hide from it.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Patchie on 8/4/2006 2:46 AM
commonsense....

I don't think that anybody would deny that the OTCBB and pink Sheets are more incline to have fraud at the corporate executive level. Unfortunately you have swallowed that same poisen pill the regulators have. Instead of seperating them you would rather throw out the baby with the bath water.

What has trasnpired over time is that laws and exemptions became created in order to address the pump and dump. The regulators attempted to make a couter-party to teh activities and that counter party was legal naked shorting. Wall Street soon found, and probably tested it out (mastered) the naked short selling fraud on the OTCBB/Pinks and once mastered migrated it to the NASDAQ/NYSE. In the process innocent companies and innocent investors became harmed while Wall Street profited.

When I talk to a contact at the NASD I am repetaedly told I paint with a broad brush my arguements. you are likewise here painting with a broad brush and accepting one form of fraud to counter nother. Problem is, which fraud is first and...how do you know the other is coming? Today companies are naked shorted first because somebody "believes" they are a POS company. What if they were wrong? What if they naked shorted a quuality company into the ground in error?

The arguements here about Pink Sheets and OTCBB companies is simple. If you can show that the short interest reporting is in error that implies it is in error everywhere and across all markets. These firms use the exact same computers and these firms trade in exactly the same manner.

One final thought: Sedona is an OTCBB Company. They are also the only real company in which the SEC has taken not one but two steps of enforcement regarding naked shorting abuses. It is the company they reference in all their discussions on the subject matter.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By anon on 8/4/2006 3:12 AM
From the wikipedia Steven A Cohen

"He is a top patron of the Mariane A. Boesky art gallery." (Ivan's daughter)

wikipedia Ivan Boesky

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Boesky

"On 14 November 1986 -- known on Wall Street at "Boesky Day" -- he reached a settlement in which he agreed to pay $100M to make up for insider trading profits, and would not participate in the securities markets in the future. Boesky served 22 months in Lompoc, and has remained out of the public spotlight since."
www.nndb.com

How do you return an 8 million dollar fetid fish?
http://www.theartnewspaper.com/article01.asp?id=355
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By commonsense on 8/4/2006 5:02 AM
hey Patchie

Good points. This is a tough one, which comes first, the chicken or egg. Anyway, keep up the good work, you and Bob. This saga makes for very curious reading indeed. Will be interesting to see how it all ends.

Best regards.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Bear on 8/4/2006 5:45 AM
Would you like me to double check all your information in the future?

Mistakes like Paystar should never happen in the first place.

How can I help?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Little Bo peep on 8/4/2006 5:50 AM
Bunny,

Please send this guy a "tin foil" hat.

FAIR AND BALANCED REPORTING!!! Thank you.

someone pinch me, so I can make sure I am not dreaming.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a387ALHm8OlU&refer=home
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By bobo on 8/4/2006 5:53 AM
Bear:

By finding and exposing the mistakes when they happen - we are all human. Patch admits he made an error, we corrected the data and removed the offensive piece. That's how we've always, always worked. Turning this board into a heckling society won't be warmly received, nor will posting 10 posts of the same general observation. He chose an inappropriate company, the data wasn't for the appropriate timeframe, comment was removed. Simple.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By NO! on 8/4/2006 1:49 PM
Two wrongs don't make a right. To illegally short an otcbb because one thinks they deserve it is WRONG. I do not trust these hedge fund sloths who make millions with illegal activites. Who made them judge jury and otc stock murderer? You are right there is a lot of fraud on the otcbb, and it commited by the hedge funds and I banks that steal everyones money.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By NO! on 8/4/2006 2:19 PM
They short illegally why would why should we think this is the only thing they do that is illegal? They are no better than corrupt ceos. Enought with the hedge fund hero talk who only target bad stocks.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By tbs_theman on 8/4/2006 3:01 PM
The funny thing about people attacking the penny stock companies that have been obliterated by naked shorting is that they display the company in a very bad light. "The company was a rip-off!" "They were just taking the shareholder's money!!"

So the naked shorting brigade came in and took the company's money and capital. And they gave it back to those injured shareholders.... Oh wait. They kept it. Stupid shareholders That's what you get for investing in a bad company.

Funny, all the attacks on Simpson, but I don't see the SEC and DOJ going after him. What has he done??? He's not in jail. No criminal charges that I can find? I don't even see a former SEC lawyer quoted in the paper that he was under investigation and his political connections stopped it....
Check this out By huh? help out please on 8/6/2006 1:41 PM
what Is the deal here? Is the OTCBB short interest just for 1 day? Or is it all volume for the entire month up till the 15th?

I was always under the impression that short interest reporting for the bigger exchanges was volume for the whole month and not just for one day.

Does buyins have it wrong or right? 1 day times 20 trading days and that is short volume for the month?

Is this is how many shares are shorted as of July 15th? Or how many shares went short on 1 day of the month? Short interest for the month or the day?

Is this is how many shares are shorted as of July 15?
Or only short volume on 1 day on July 15th?

As far as days to cover it just means if they bought every one of the shares that were short on an average days volume, it would take this many (x) days to cover. It seems to round anything under 1 to 1 and anything over 1000 to 999.99

(OCAI) Short shares = 6,826,222 Avg daily volume = 196,680
"Days to cover" = 6826222/196680 = 34.7


DALLAS--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 27, 2006--www.buyins.net is reiterating coverage of NewMarket Technology, Inc. (OTCBB:NMKT - News) after releasing the latest short sale data to July 2006. From January 2005 to July 2006 approximately 484 million total aggregate shares of NMKT have traded for a total dollar value of nearly $210.8 million. The total aggregate number of shares shorted in this time period is approximately 37.3 million shares. According to July 10th Total Short Interest, there are 82,508 shares that have been shorted, but not yet covered. Because brokerage firms are only required to disclose what they are short on one day of the month, the average amount of Total Short Volume in stocks is approximately 20 times (20 trading days vs. 1 trading day) the disclosed Total Short Interest figure. In some cases, BUYINS.NET has seen Total Short Volume higher by as much as 100 times the disclosed increase in Total Short Interest for that given month. The NMKT SqueezeTrigger price of $0.44 is the volume weighted average short price of all short selling in NMKT. A short squeeze is expected to begin when shares of NMKT close above $0.44. To access SqueezeTrigger Prices ahead of potential short squeezes beginning, visit http://www.buyins.net.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By ckza on 8/6/2006 1:36 PM
The SEC's only economist, Cynthia Glassman, who seemed indifferent to Rodney Young, of Eagle Tech's argument, has been moved over to the Commerce Dept. by President Bush. Sadly, after numerous personal emails to this peoples "representative," I never received one RETURN RESPONSE. It would appear that, the best way to get promoted surrounding the Peoples business, is to NOT do the Peoples business.



Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By Mr. Wiggle on 8/3/2006 9:55 PM
I've noticed a real downturn in activity on the otc.bb and pinksheets stocks. After 6 years of investing on these exchanges it is an obvious trend. Anybody else notice this?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; Post Has Mysterious Omission of FFH Articles By davidn on 8/3/2006 10:18 PM
I noticed that, too. The MM's are probably reluctant to do wash trails with all the heat.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 12:54 PM
Bear.. It is not about the Dollar Value, it is about the accuracy of the data.

If there is 1.1 Billion O/S the fails are a minimum of 583,000 shares that have persisted for long enough to be considered a SHO Security. Who created the fails? The stock trades nothing and then trades 40 million shares and then trades nothing again. All perfectly matched with no change in stock value and yet no market making activities as well?

If the data can be fudged here, how many other places is it fudged? How about Global Links that Carol cited? Simpson still doesn't have his 1.1 million shares 16 months later and yet the short is 7000 shares representing no market making? I thought these illiquid stocks need market making to create liquidity. Where is it? Certainly does not show up in these numbers presented.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 1:01 PM
BTW...This Aguirre thing.

Gasparino cited an SEC Source close to the investigation indicated the SEC will most likely make the evidence available to the public. That information is a violation of the SEC's cannot confirm or deny rules and that SEC Attorney should be terminated.

As for your comments about PayStar coming off SHO - more reason to believe it was market making and yet the market making did not get reported. How come? It appears PYST came off today and if you go back 5 days it represents the first day it qualified to come off. That is still making it qualified on the day the short interest was reported.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 1:04 PM
Patchie, one thing I find confusing is why so many companies have from 1-1000 shares short. Why not 0?

There must be some reason they have to disclose that there is a short without accurately disclosing the size of it? Do you have any theories? Could it be related to Berlin somehow?

They must have been laughing to themselves at how angry it would make us when they posted these numbers. They don't even attempt to make them seem credible.

Market makers are ALLOWED to naked sell, but for some reason, they seem to only go long on OTC companies...

Short 1 share........193 companies
Short 2 shares.......101 companies
Short 3 shares.......61 companies
Short 4 shares.......42 companies
Short 5 shares.......28 companies
Short 6 shares.......33 companies
Short 7 shares.......26 companies
Short 8 shares.......20 companies
Short 9 shares.....19 companies
Short 10 - 100 shares...793 companies
Short 101 - 1000 shares...1318 companies
Short 1001 - 10,000 shares...1880 companies
Short 10,001 - 100,000 shares...1463 companies
Short 100,001 - 1,000,000 shares...737 companies
Short more than a million..............173 companies
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 1:05 PM
Bob,

The short Interest data was up July 15th (the settlement date) not the whole month of July.

Patch did not do a good job researching this one

http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/trader/defincludes/nasdshortint_def.stm#pubnew
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 1:07 PM
E-trade is banning the deposit of OTC, CNQ and pinksheet stock certificates. When investors call for their certificate, they tell them that the act of pulling the certificate makes it worthless as it can never be deposited again.

https://www.canada.etrade.com/estation/lcmmdsc3.shtml

I've also heard reports of brokerages making some OTC companies "sell only".
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 1:09 PM
Patch,

Are you really still spreading the Global Links scam?

Simpson is a scam artist with a bogus diploma mill degree.

Would like to hear Bobs thoughts on Global Links
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By bobo on 8/3/2006 1:12 PM
Bear: The question remains. How can a stock appear on the sho list for settlement failures, and yet there is no short interest? How likely is that? How likely that companies like Global Links have no short interest to speak of?

My hunch is that these will be discovered to have had the SI wildly under-reported, likely due to innacurate reporting from offshore.

GIGO
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 1:15 PM
The pedigree of the company is irrelevant as the investors' money is real!!!

You are not doing something for God and country to take their money, drive the value of their invesment down and give them nothing in return.

There are lots of examples of companies with a lousy pedigree that became really big. Yahoo, for example was nothing but a handful of web pages with links to other sites and hardly any ad revenue when their stock went crazy. That gave them currency to buy other assets that justifed the high stock value.

If there is more real buying than selling, than what gives you the right to flood the market with bogus receipts to stop the price from rising?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 1:19 PM
Bobo, I believe the rule only applies to brokerages that are members of the NASD - ie. only US brokerages. Offshore shorts would not appear in these numbers.

Most market makers are US based, though. Their short numbers should appear.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By bobo on 8/3/2006 1:27 PM
davidn: I've always heard that most of the OTCBB shorting comes via Canada and the Caribbean. That could explain a lot of this non-appearance.

Bear: Name calling doesn't achieve anything positive, and a steady stream of yahoo-style posts featuring invective will get you deleted here.

Fair warning. I hate having to delete. But I do, occasionally.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 1:34 PM
Bear,

A short takes place and is counted based on the date of the transaction until covered. The stock was listed on SHO up until today and was first qualified for SHO on the 17th or 18th. Taking those dates and backing off three days for settlement than the actual short would have happened prior to the 15th.

I realize the list is a single day snapshot question is, which day?

As for Global Links - A FTD is an FTD and if Simpson can not get his shares is irrelevant to his personal status on earth. I simply want to know how come delivery has not yet been accomplished and whether it is a long fail or a short fail why 16 months? No long should fail 16 months and be a legal cause and if it was a short, it was not posted as one according to the list.

Open your mind bear, if the list is inaccurate the question is - how and why?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 1:37 PM
Still strange that so many companies are short one share instead of 0.

Take All American Coffee for example. It trades on the pink sheets and had no volume today. The bid is $.30 and the offer is $2. Last at $.65. Not sure I would want to be even 1 share short with that kind of spread, but then again 1 share is only $.65 and you could make a windfall profit of $.65 before commission if the trade is successful and the company goes under.

I'm thinking it could be a clue to what is going on. Maybe Decosta has some insight on why a brokerage would be short 1 share instead of 0.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Stanly7 on 8/3/2006 1:39 PM
The Post probably is afraid of being sued for the online cotent. Where is FFH domiciled?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 1:45 PM
Bob,

Would like to hear your thoughts on Global Link and if you really think Simpson really purchased 100% of the float.

Thanks

Bear
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 1:50 PM
Short Interest reporting is only by the Member firms.

David. One of teh reasons for the odd numbers would be an odd lot sale. Market makers takes these odd lot orders and trades back and forth over the course of the day. At the end they are off by one or 2 shares as they close out teh book for the day.

Funny thing about those spreads though. Wasn't the SEC concerned about larger spreads in the market if we eliminated the market maker exemption? I guess they are only concerned when it is in teh interests of making these market makers financially secure.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By bobo on 8/3/2006 2:04 PM
I have no thoughts on Global Links. I have no way of knowing what he bought, other than his public statements and SEC filing. Is your sentiment that he lied on his SEC filing? What evidence do you have for this, and why hasn't the SEC prosecuted him for doing so?
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By gregcable2002 on 8/3/2006 2:14 PM
The online B/D's are trying to show us online investors who runs the show by not allowing us to trade certain stocks online now,sorta like a rebellion if you please,these fuc's are trying to show us whose boss.We need a day of protest whereby we ALL stop trading for one day and send them a message that they can shove their counterfiet stocks up their a##es.Sorry for the language but anyone with half a brain can see whats going on now.Hope I didn't offend anyone.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 2:24 PM
Bear, at a closer look you may be correct in that the trades that put PYST on SHO were a day or so after the trade date for the short report. According to the Pink Sheets the Trade date was July 10 with settlement on the 14th (Hadn't seen that section before you pointed it out). Based on the SHO list, and moving back the date minus 5 qualifier days you get to a settlement date of July 16. PYST may not be as good an example as it originally looked.

Now you see why there is an open discussion. I belive I was in error.

I will stick to my guns on Global Links (although I have always been skeptical of the Companies 1:350 split deals and tried to contact the company on these shady deals). But, If the reported O/S goes down by a factor of 350 than it theoretically happened and after this length of time the SEC would have stepped in if the Filings were fraudulant.

When this split happened the stock continued to trade at exactly the same price as it did pre-split which is how Simpson was able to make this purchase two days after the split. Simpson went into the market and was sold 1.1 million shares for $5,000. His broker bought it and the volume supported the purchase. Now it can't be delivered. The market cap for the stock was cut by a factor of 350 on a single day as the market traded at excatly the same price. It went from nearly $2 million to $5,000 overnight.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Bear on 8/3/2006 2:49 PM
Thanks David for finding your error. On another note Jimmy B explains the Global Links mystery

http://nakedshortlie.blogspot.com/2005/04/global-links-corp.html

Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Global Links Corp
Capital Raised: $ 4.67million
Capital Burned: $ 4.45 million
Previous Executive Compensation: $143,627 annually (2004) for the current CEO

As broken down companies go, there's nothing exceptional about Global Links' balance sheet. It's the same old thing we see in a lot of these candidates for stock hospice. Millions raised, millions gone, and a nice salary for the man at the top.

What has made Global Links entertaining to watch has been their creative approach to common stockholder dilution and how they've managed this share dilution while effortlessly keeping control out of the hands of the shareholders being diluted.

Global Links made headlines when, after their February 1, 2005 reverse stock split, a Form 3 was filed by Robert C Simpson claiming to have acquired nearly 1.2 million shares of Global Links. This was supposed to have constituted 100 percent of Global Links' outstanding shares. Despite this acquisition by Mr. Simpson, millions of shares of Global Links common continued to trade, thereby fueling accusations that "naked short sellers" were somehow involved and actively seeking to harm Global Links. The story made more headlines when Senator Bennett of Utah referenced Global Links and Mr. Simpson in a Senate banking committee.

Unfortunately, Senator Bennett did not do any research on Global Links before he made his ill-timed remarks to SEC Chairman William Donaldson.

Had Senator Bennett done his research on Global Links, he would have immediately recognized their M.O. For the fourteen months prior to the February 1 reverse split, Global Links had diluted their previous common stockholders by some 90 percent. The company is a perpetual share issuing machine. In the sixty days that followed their reverse split, Global Links diluted their stock by over 70 percent.

Had Senator Bennett done his research on Global Links, he would have found that there was an amendment to a previous share offering filed with the SEC for 600 million shares that stipulated that the offering would not be affected by any future splits of the company's common stock.

So much for Mr. Simpson's 100 percent stake in Global Links.

However, this sundae has a very special cherry on top of it. Dig further through Global Links' SEC filings and you will find one of the most offensive notes ever seen in a company's annual report.

Global Links has an issue of Series B Preferred Stock outstanding. Some of the issue was given away to management in lieu of compensation in 2003, more was handed out in the time that followed. For bookkeeping purposes, the company has assigned a value of $15,000 for the entire 15 million share issue of Series B Preferred.

Here's the fun part.

Each share of Series B Preferred has the right to TWENTY votes for any vote involving the company's common shareholders. According to a Financialwire article in March, Mr. Simpson expressed concern that there might be a form of preferred shares that could prevent him from taking control of the company. Mr. Simpson had good reason to express concern as we shall see when we review Zann Corp tomorrow.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 2:51 PM
Greg, I don't trade on Mondays as my own personal strike against the system. They haven't noticed yet, but if we all did it, it would knock their trading volume (and profits) down by 20%.

I agree with Patchie on Global Links. I actually bought them and made some money on the short squeeze (cashed out). I wasn't terribly impressed with the fundamentals, but it looked like they got caught off guard by the split. If I remember, there were some convertible preferreds and I think the system just assumed they'd get converted and sold. They didn't.

I've met people that have bragged to me that they've been short more than the whole outstanding in some companies that they were doing placements with. It happens all the time.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By davidn on 8/3/2006 2:55 PM
Bear, that kind of matches my interpretation of what happened. The street expected shares to be issued, so they sold IOU's up front. As a buyer at that time, I expected a real share for my hard earned cash, not an IOU.

Some naked shorts are company insiders shorting their own companies. The pedigree of the company is not relevant - no one should be allowed to see IOU's and pawn them off as if they are real shares.
Re: SEC Leaking Info In Investigation; OTCBB SI and Remond Article A Joke By Patchie on 8/3/2006 3:05 PM
david, you are correct and bear you miss the point.

Hilary Shane naked shorted against pending registration of securities. It was a naked short executed by a member firm and a naked short purchased by another. That could be the same case here for all we know.

In the case of Global Links, I have read the company filings and they make me puke as well. There is a problem however. The stock trades the common shares of which there are only 4+million and by account statements Simpson owns 1.1 million. The Broker who accepted the trade on behalf of the selling client is OBLIGATED to make sure the seller has the shares. Prudential, who purchased these shares on behalf of Simpson is equally responsible for getting delivery of these shares they purchased.

Nobody has ever claimed that naked shorting is not from insiders as well which is why our goal and objective is to settle ALL trades promptly. Wall Street must be held accountable for the selling party no matter who it is (Hedge Fund, Insider, market maker, etc...). If they are not, the investing public gets screwed.

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Please limit your comments to 500 characters. For longer comments, use our forums.
Subscribe via Email
Get This Blog via Email:


Powered by Squeet.com