| | 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 Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 8/24/2006 1:39 PM

Just when you think it can't get any worse, that we've seen a problem's full scope, and there is nothing more shocking to be revealed...it does, and there is.

Dave Patch had the following email exchange with the SEC over the last few days:

"From: David Patch


Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 6:52 PM
To: Mandic, Frank; Taylor, Felecia; foiapa
Subject: FOIA #06-06551

Frank,

I have reviewed the information provided under this request and believe that a portion of this request is missing. My request for information pertained to the Aggregate Fails to Deliver for Global Links through the period of 2005 for which you responded. In the response there was a statement claiming that there were no fails to deliver for the period between January 1, 2005 and April 18, 2005. I believe this to be a mistake.

During the month of February and March of 2005 Global Links (GLKC) traded under their symbol but had an "E" attached to the symbol (GLKCE) to identify a corporate action underway.  While trading with the modifier, Global Links had sufficient fails to deliver as reported by the DTCC to qualify for the regulation SHO threshold security list. GLKCE was identified on the list on February 10, 2005.

If you would, could I have the remainder of this information provided as this information falls within the boundaries of the originating request. I am forwarding the response I received as a reference.

Thank You,

Dave Patch

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

 

Mr. Patch:

        According the consulting office they only went by the ticker symbol you provided in your request "GLKC".   Please note they can only search by the symbol you  provided in your request.  For future requests you may want to provide an alternate ticker symbol  to avoid any confusion. 

Thanks.

Frank Mandic 

FOIA/Privacy Act Research Specialist"

And then they provided him with the numbers.

Here are the fails for Global Links, from February, when they only had 1.1 million total shares outstanding, to April, when Dave's other data begins. Note that at some point between February and end of March, the company issued 3.3 million shares, as previously discussed. I had speculated that those additional shares were used to reduce the FTD level, and that the 10 million in April was down from some higher number earlier. I was right, but I didn't know how much higher the number was.

In February, Global Links had 27 million fails on 1.1 million issued shares.

27 million.

Senator Bennett demanded that Donaldson investigate the trading in the company, and report back to him. He never reported back to him, but you can bet that the SEC looked into it.

So our top securities cop, the regulator who is arguing that they should be allowed to "handle" the FTD crisis, and not the states, allowed 27 times the issued shares to be failed deliveries - all the while assuring the public that there was no massive problem, that it was trivial, and that Reg SHO was "working."

Investors were being defrauded via MASSIVE dilution of breathtaking size, and the SEC knew about it, and covered it up, and did nothing to stop it or even slow it.

So I will say it again. How bad does this have to be shown to be before the Senate Judiciary will step in and appoint a special prosecutor?

I believe that the shareholders of Global Links have a massive class action suit against the brokers that defrauded them, as well as the individuals at the SEC who participated in this cover-up and breach of their duty. 27 million shares failed on issued shares of 1.1 million. That is pure fraud against investors by Wall Street, aided and abetted by individuals at the SEC, who chose not to abide by their charter in the 1934 Securities Exchange Act (to protect investors, and safeguard the public's interest) but instead to allow Wall Street to severely damage shareholders for financial gain, and do nothing, and then cover it up, while making false and misleading statements.

We heard nothing from the NY financial press last week, with the notable exception of Forbes. Everyone else just pretended that the data wasn't showing what the data clearly showed. I wonder if the brave freedom fighting journalists at the WSJ, or the NY Times, or Barron's, or the NY Sun, or Reuters, or AP, or TheStreet or Motley Fool, or even the NY Post, will take a moment out from their important work and comment on the largest financial fraud of our lifetime, and the proof that our securities regulator is assisting in covering-up the fraud? They were all there to say Patrick was crazy, and that we were a bunch of loons. I wonder if they will be here to break the news that we were right, and that there is a systemic problem, and that our regulators lied to us and participated in an organized fraud against investors and issuers?

Our worst fears were not bad nor ugly enough. Patrick has long been saying that insiders tell him that the ex-clearing fails in companies like OSTK and NFI are more like 15 to 20 times as bad as the in-system FTDs represented in the SHO data. Is there anyone out there now who doubts that could be true?

What is there to say?

 

 
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (48)
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By SteveM on 8/24/2006 5:57 PM
If the SEC doesn't want to disclose who the criminals are who created the counterfeit shares, then they are covering up the crime. Not enforcing the laws is one thing. Not providing the names of the brokers that have commited this crime is another. It is too late for the US Senate Banking Committee. It is time for the United States Department of Justice!

27 million fails on 1.1 million legitimate shares. No wonder companies are considering unlisting from the US exchanges.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By mfairview on 8/24/2006 6:03 PM
How much would you wager they will say 26M were grandfathered in because they occurred before Jan 1, 2005?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Patchie on 8/25/2006 4:26 AM
Selene,

Your message above was long and distracting so i will try and simplify.

Pre-Split teh company had a Market Cap of approx. 1.75 Million with approx 400 Million issued and outstanding. Post Split, Simpson purchased 111% of the total shares issued and outstanding for $5000.00. this occurred because there are now only 1.1 million legal shares in the market but teh stock and the shares are not reflective of the post split market.

With the excessive amount of shares, the availability of shares was enormous and thus the market cap was trounced by the seperation of supply and demand. Once the market is created at present levels, who is going to bid it at 350 times that market?

Re: Fails. These are post split fails. A fail will be subject to the same ratio calculation as a normal share. The industry cannot simply wipe away or be injured in the FTD by a corporate action. For example, in a 2:1 split, 10,000 FTD's pre-Split become 20,000 post split as that account carrying the 10,000 FTD's now shows 20,000 shares. In this case, the ratio 27:1 is the accurate portrayal of FTD:Issued as this data was taken post split. I believe the high volumes early on in Global Links support that level of new failures.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 5:35 AM
Since the symbol GLKC(E) was totally different from the pre-reverse split symbol, I don't buy the "trading mistake" argument.

The reverse split actuallt deminished the real value of the shares because the conversion ratio of the B-preferred was not adjusted, so the B claim on total equity was increased by a factor of 350, while the total value of all A shares was reduced by a factor of 350.

Someone was dumping millions of "fake" shares into the market because they knew the "real" shares had become economicly worthless.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By no on 8/25/2006 5:41 AM
Selene,

Let’s assume Wall Street made a mistake and give them the benefit of the doubt.

How about NO NO NO.

This “mistake” let someone buy all issued and outstanding shares for 5000 bucks. But It should have cost over 1.7mil.

What of all the small individual shareholders who had all monetary value stripped away as Wall Street counterfeit shares by the tens of millions!

Someone needs to pay!!!
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 5:48 AM
For more background on Global Links, try this link and move forward or back.


http://ragingbull.lycos.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=GBLL&read=11905
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 6:20 AM
If Patch wants January 2005 fail data he needs to ask about GOBCE.

By: soldgold0
01 Feb 2005, 10:38 AM EST
Msg. 11981 of 13839
Jump to msg. #
Daily List Search
OTC BULLETIN BOARD (OTCBB) SYSTEM CHANGES

DIVIDENDS
Record Date SYMBOL COMPANY NAME DIVIDEND TYPE
GOBCE Global Links Corporation Common Stock Reverse Split

NAME/SYMBOL CHANGES
DL DATE DATE OLD SYMBOL/NAME NEW SYMBOL/NAME
01/31/2005 02/01/2005 GOBCE Global Links Corporation Common Stock GLKCE Global Links Corporation New Common Stock

Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/25/2006 6:37 AM
Selene:

This was no accident. The fails are post split. As Dave says, Wall Street simply sold shares in massive amounts, effectively diluting investors' value of one share by a factor of 350. The SEC allowed Wall Street to do that, and even after they had to know, chose to cover it up rather than fixing the mess. Wall Street made a lot of money, investors lost a lot of money. Due entirely to fraud, and our regulator not doing its job - to this very day.

It is actually simple. Your cognitive dissonance comes from the naive belief that this can't or couldn't happen, that it can't be that overt or that blatant, that there must be some mistake. There isn't.

As to the poster who asked, "How do we know this isn't occurring with many stocks" the answer is we don't. At all. Presumably, the FTD and SHO data would catch it. That assumes that the data is accurate and meaningful, and that brokers aren't simply desking trades of, say, 5% of all shares traded in the market, secure in the knowledge that few ever ask for their shares. Those would happen ex-clearing. We would never know.

This is the basis of a crisis in confidence in the integrity of the market. When the cops are proved to be corrupt, and the participants unboundedly crooked, it falls apart.

That's what the data shows. That is also why no NY financial pub is willing to touch this - except for Forbes.

They derive their livelihoods from being Wall Street's mouthpieces. Nobody wants to touch the story that exposes the entire system as a sham. Even the Senators are only exploring the Aguirre matter - they aren't going after the NSS side, as it is too hot and the implications too far ranging.

We need a special prosecutor. Now. This is a genuine crisis.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 6:38 AM
Global Links Corp. Addresses Change in Trading Symbol
Business Wire - February 02, 2005 09:00

LAS VEGAS, Feb 2, 2005 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- Global Links Corp. (OTCBB:GLKC) announced that it is currently trading under the symbol GLKCE (OTCBB:GLKCE). The "E" was appended to the Company's symbol by NASDAQ on January 14, 2005 as a result of the Company's non-compliance with Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (http://www.sarbanes-oxley.com). Section 102 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act mandates that every public company's accounting firm be registered with the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board ("PCAOB") (http://www.pcaob.com/). The PCAOB oversees the new record-keeping and disclosure requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

In the course of a random audit, it was discovered that the Company's former accountant was not registered with the PCAOB. As a result, the Company dismissed its former accountant and retained the firm of Lynda R. Keeton CPA, LLC to serve as the Company's new auditor of record. The Company is working with Lynda R. Keeton CPA, LLC to re-audit the Company's financial statements and to remedy the situation concerning its trading symbol in a timely manner.

Effective February 1, 2005, the Company implemented a one for 350 reverse split of its authorized and outstanding shares of common stock. The number of authorized and outstanding shares of the Company's common stock following the February 1, 2005 reverse split is 5,428,571 and 1,158,064, respectively.

SOURCE: Global Links Corp.

Global Links Corp., Las Vegas
Investor Relations:
Patrick Donahoo, 702-855-5890
pdonahoo@globallinkscorp.com
www.globallinkscorp.com
The SEC has known about this "problem" for17 months! By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 6:52 AM
From a March 9, 2005 13-D filing with the SEC

ITEM 4. PURPOSE OF TRANSACTION.

The Reporting Person acquired his interest in the Issuer primarily to
point out the complete failure of government and exchange regulatory bodies
to maintain honest, orderly markets, and the corrupt actions of market makers
and securities clearing bodies, which facilitate the sale of unissued,
unregistered, counterfeit, or simply nonexistent securities.

On February 3, 2005 a single investor reportedly purchased all the
common shares issued by the company, plus 145 additional unissued shares.

Subsequent to that date, over 95 million shares, or over 82 times the
total shares issued, were reportedly traded, none of which were reportedly
sold by the 100% owner of the common stock.

On March 4 and 7, I purchased a total of 180,000 shares, resulting in
my obtaining 15.54% ownership of a stock reportedly already 100% owned by
another investor. I assume that there may be additional investors who may
also claim ownership of common shares of this company.

I have requested that certificates be issued to me representing my full
15.54% ownership interest, to protect my right to vote and enforce any other
claims that may accrue to an actual documented owner.

I understand that Reg. SHO was supposed to detect and prevent the
fabrication of millions of nonexistent shares. It would appear that my
securities purchases prove that Reg. SHO has been systematically violated
by market-making brokers and securities-clearing firms.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Patchie on 8/25/2006 7:18 AM
Polk...

Not sure what you are trying to prove here but according to your earlier post, GLKC became GLKCE on January 14, 2005. That implies that GLKC was trading in 2005 and yet the SEC has no recorded fails in GLKC in January - April 2005. In addition, GLKCE has fails in the system but they do not appear until POST split as evidenced by the most recent data. The fails spiking in a single day to 27 Million and that spike directly corresponds to the trade date. Trade Feb 1 (Trade +3 is Feb 2,3,4).

Based on the manner in which you are posting you are looking more and more like the SI "shared brain gang".
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 7:43 AM
Global Links has had so many symbols its hard to keep track of them.

Some of them were:

GBLL
GBOC
GBOCE
GLKCE
GLKC

Patch erred by not asking for GBOCE (yet) and by believing the E had something to do with "when-issued" or "corporate reorganization"
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/25/2006 8:06 AM
Bob and Dave

First, I changed the numbers up slightly in my post because I fealt they would be easier for others to follow the thought process and because the actaul numbers lend themselves to slight variation because of rounding errors (the actual case deals with fractions of a penny for share price). But, let me instead do my best to work with the actual numbers as Dave has provided by approximation.

Global links pre split has a 1.75 million mrkt cap ($ 1,750,000 approx). They have approx. 400 million shares outstanding. If we devide the market cap by the 400 million shares (approx) we get a price per share of $0.00438 (1.75million devided by 400,000,000 shares = .00438/share).

Now, post split we will have to reduce the share count by a factor of 1/350 or .00286. So... 400 million shares multiplied by 0.00286 equals 1,144,000 shares (the new post split share count. again these are approximates). We could just as well divided the 400 million shares by 350 and got 1,142,857 shares (close enough / the difference is accounted for by the rounding errors that creap in by working with decimals also I'm using an approximate share count of 400 million and not the actual pre split count). Eitherway we have about 1.14 million shares post split outstanding.

As for the price of Global links it should generally adjust upwards by a multiple of 350. So if the pre split price was 0.00438 then the post split price should roughly be $1.533 per share post split (.00438 x 350 = 1.533/share). The market cap stays the same. That is 1.14 million shares multiplied by $1.533 per share equals approximately $1,750,000 of market cap (again rounding errors will give slightly different numbers).

You've claimed that an investor bought 111% of the company post split for 5000 dollars. Well, 111% of the company amounts to approximately 1,265,400 shares total purchased (1.14 million shares x 1.11). If he bought it for $5000 then his purchase price per share is $0.00395/share (that is $5000 divided by 1.265 million shares). These numbers once again suggest that the investor purchased shares post split, but based on pre split prices and share count (ie. Wall Street didn't adjust for the split). In looks as if the investor actually bought 1/350th of the company and not over 100%. To purchase 100% of the company post split he would have to pay approx $1.533 per share for 1.14million shares which amounts to about 1.75 million in market value. Instead he paid the old pre split price of approx $0.004 per share which suggest, again, that the shares were not adjusted for the split as they should have been.

Again with the fails: If on the one hand we see trades taking place at the pre split share count and price, then why would we not generally want to assume that the fails data is also taking place at the pre split share count. So when we see 27 million in fails, I generally want to assume that that's based on 400 million shares outstanding. To find what it should be if the reverse split was accounted for correctly we would have to divide the 27 million in fails by 350 to get 77,000 approx. of post split share fails. When the number decreases to 10million fails, once again we would have to divide this by 350 to get 28,000 share fails. Both are approximately 10% and 3% of pre or post split shares respectively depending on how you view the data. Now if you tell me that the ftd data on global links is in no way based on pre split share count, then I'm in agreement with you that we have a big problem here. However, the numbers seem to suggest that the fails data is based on pre split share count.

Bottm line: The numbers all suggest that the reverse split never went through properly. This type of situation has happened before as I'm sure it will happen again. Obviously what is needed is for Wall Street to correct the share amounts and adjust the price / share accordingly. Nothing more than basic accounting.

As for Global links issuance of new shares. We still have a problem here. If they sold them into the market post split at 0.004 per share then they were most likely harmed. If they sold them at 1.533 per share then there is no harm and no foul.

I am not an expert in these things and most likely have not done a great job stating my position, but one person I do know who could articulate this is Patrick. If he supports your interpretation of the data, then I will shut my mouth on this topic, but for now, both of you have provided cognitive dissonance rivaling my own.

Selene
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/25/2006 8:17 AM
Selene: What part of, Wall Street didn't adjust the price correctly to reflect the split, and just happily sold shares without ever changing either the share count or the value, seems the most confusing to you?

And what part of, the SEC investigated this per Bennett, and allowed Wall Street to continue mis-pricing the shares, and printing new ones, without ever fixing the problem also seems confusing to you?

Here's what you are trying to say: If Wall Street had done this appropriately, the price of Global Links should have been 350 times higher, or about a buck and a half per share. Instead, Wall Street just sold and sold and sold, never adjusting the share count or values, and ignoring the press releases from the company alerting everyone to the split. That screwed the company, and every investor.

Now, you say it would be easy to fix. Yup. It would have been. The SEC could and should have stopped trading, and forced the trades to be broken, and the correct value and number of shares to be issued.

But that isn't what our securities regulator did. Instead, it covered up the massive dilution, insisting to congress and the public that Reg SHO was working, and that those complaining of massive dilution due to NSS were crybabies and loons. In short, it allowed MASSIVE fraud against investors to continue unabated, and lied about what was going on.

Is there any part of this that you still find confusing?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 8:23 AM
You have mis-stated total market cap because of convertible "B" preferred shares, which represented economic ownership of over 99% of Global Links assetts.

Because of not adjusting the "B" conversion ratio, the economic vale of the common declined with each reverse split.

Since the symbol changed with each reverse split, investors were buying or selling the post-reverse-split shares, and the "fails" are also post-reverse-split "fails", 27 times the issued shares in early Feb. 2005.

Clearly the "system" lets SOMEONE sell shares regardless of whether or not they exist.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/25/2006 9:23 AM
The part I'm not understanding is the assertion of "Massive fraud." I don't understand massive fraud in a situation where everyone, split or no split, is purchasing and selling shares in correct fractional ownership amounts. For example: if someone buys 100% of the company and pays 1.75 million dollars for it, then it is of little substance whether or not that 100% ownership is represented by 1 million shares or 400 million shares. Eitherway it is a legit 100% ownership. Can you follow that?

Now if you tell me he paid 1.75 million for 1.1 million shares then I'm with you on this one, but the facts as have been put forth don't suggest this. So I'm asking where is the "Massive fraud here?"

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. If you hope to win this war, you had better buck up and start picking and choosing your battles carefully. You have Prem Watsa at FFH and Patrick Byrne at Overstock. You've done a decent job explaining NFI. This Global links situation has not been articulated in any understandible way. Not by you. Not by dave. Not by the SEC. Not by me.... Lose the god damn attitude and start focusing to win. Bob, you have brought a lot to the table on these issues and now it's time to close. It does our cause no good if you and everyone on your side can only bring us 90% of the way there. We all have to close. That's the important 10% remaining. To do so means clear cases, well articulated, easily understandible, well documented, and without unsupported conclusions. The facts in Global links as expressed or presented to date don't lend themselves to that. Maybe that will change, but for now I can't agree with you in asserting "Massive fraud," and can only at best say "measured Incompetence" or "total neglect."

Selene
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By virakiller on 8/25/2006 9:24 AM
tic toc tic toc
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By virakiller on 8/25/2006 10:19 AM
MASSIVE FRAUD

Is what counterfeiting is all about
you steal when you take money and DONT deliver
and all those "journal entries" are the Massive fraud
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/25/2006 11:19 AM
Selene: Again. What part of, they were supposed to adjust the price, didn't, and instead just continued to sell non-existent shares in amounts that were 25 times greater than what exists, are you finding confusing?

Explain where you are getting hung up. This is simple. The MMs and brokers have a job. That job is to appropriately value, and number, the shares in X company.

They failed to do so in GL. Now, the fraud comes in where investors, who ran the calculation and went, wow, those shares really should be over a buck, were buying, thinking they were getting what the company - the only entity allowed to create shares - issued as shares. They didn't.

The fraud also comes up when you have the SEC recognizing something went badly wrong, and instead of correcting it, allowed it to continue.

Let me make this simple for you. The company issued 2.2 million shares sometime after the massive NSS selling at the beginning of February. Those 3.3 million shares should have been worth around $5 million. Instead they wound up being worth about 1:350th of that. Thus, the company received far less than they should have, and investors were diluted far more than they should have been. Not because of anything the company or the investors did. Because Wall Street kept selling shares in massive amounts.

The SEC condoned this fraudulent creation of millions and millions of shares. They could have stopped it, and didn't. Instead, the SEC allowed Wall Street to continue the deception, wherein it arbitrarily decided to devalue the company's shares 350-fold. The SEC was told to investigate. Instead of saying, holy S, there's been a huge mistake here, stop the trading and unwind the trades, they allowed the trades to stay on the books, forever devaluing the company 350 fold. Buyers of all those bogus shares didn't get voting rights, or rights to a dividend - they got nothing. Shares were advertised, representing a parcel of rights, and when paid for, nothing was delivered. Is that completely, crystal clear to you? Nothing. Nada. Zip.

When you take someone's money and deliver nothing, I call that fraud. I call the creation of massive delivery failures, where buyers in fact got nothing, fraud. I call Wall Street cranking up the printing presses, and creating something besides what was advertised (shares) and selling those fakes in massive amounts, effectively devaluing the company's shares by 350 to one, fraud. I call the SEC saying there is no issue, and all is well, and SHO is working, while it knew full well this was going on, fraud.

What do you call it?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/25/2006 11:21 AM
I wish you and Selene would get off what the stock "should have been worth".

After three reverse splits, the common stock "should have been worth" ZERO, since it represented less than a 1% claim on all of Global Links questionable assets.

There are TWO frauds here.

Fraud #1 was when the company president used his voting control to reduce the net claim of the common holders to virtually zero.

Fraud #2 was when SOMEONE sold 27 million shares that did not, and could not legally exist.

The SEC knew about, and did nothing about, both frauds.

The SEC then tried to be cute in releasing incomplete "fails" information to Patch.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/25/2006 11:54 AM
Bob

Let me get this straight. You are saying that the company accepted .004 dollars in the primary market for its new shares instead of the 1.50 dollars it should of generally recieved? Why would they accept that? Forget about the secondary market (the marketplace) for a second if you can...

Can you or Dave provide more info on this. As I said before, if it turns out that the issuance of new shares went off at prices that reflect pre split and not post split then I too can agree that there is a glaring problem here that is going to need fixing. But, if it turns out that most of the problem is produced by Wall Street Negligence in adjusting the shares and price properly, then in some sensible way the problem can be fixed by adjusting the accounting for all of this mess (both in the marketplace and on the company's books). For example the seasoned offerings would have to, by neccessity, be re accounted for on a pre split basis making it an offering of 3 or 4 million shares on top of 400 million shares there abouts. I understand that this is rediculous to some extent considering that the company reversed split its stock, but a practical fix it is, given what is being described to me by your accounts.

Given this, there will clearly be people who were harmed. They rellied and traded on price information that was incorrect. However, I can't do the math you and dave are doing that gets me to a point where this all equals "Massive Fraud." The dollar amounts just aren't there. Fraud maybe. Manipulative tactics... maybe. But at this stage "Massive Fraud" has still not been supported from the facts as you have laid them out.

Please understand, I am not trying to be argumentative. I would not go on about this unless I truly felt that other intelligent readers would find confusion in the facts as described. Maybe that confusion is a matter of the circumstances and not any of your doing, but nevertheless, I still feel that you are not hashing through this in a understandible fashion.

When you say fraud, my question is who was defrauded and by how much. Pointing out a guy who thinks he is buying 100% of the company for .004 dollars when it should of been 1.50 dollars doesn't signal fraud to me. It just means they havent adjusted the shares. If Wall Street did this purposefully to create confusion and to obfiscate the truth then yes, we have fraud, but for how much? A few hundred thousand or millions of dollars does not constitute massive fraud. Even if you misspoke a bit, it still doesn't raise Global Links to the level of the allegations put out in other cases like Overstock / NFI / and FFH (and many others). Is it a similar pattern of abuse? I don't think most of your readers can legitimately come to that conclusion based on the case that you and Dave had made to date. If there really is something here, then I truly urge you to dig into more detail and express the situation better than you have to date. As it stands now, the average american can not follow this case based upon hard understandible facts that you have presented with explanations and discusion, instead any general agreement with your position seems to be brought about from a measured level of ignorance...

Selene
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/25/2006 12:52 PM
Selene:

You are now blending two metrics. The first is dollar harm, the second is actual percentage of the issued shares that were sold, with no asset to back them, and which Wall Street then refused to deliver on.

I don't think the average person is at all confused by any of this. You are the only one saying this is all confusing, and that the facts are somehow confusing. Nobody is confused, regardless of how this is spun as confusing.

There are two issues. The first is the fraud itself. I would suggest that a 25X overselling of non-existent shares is massive. Do you disagree? If you disagree, what amount of overselling would be massive fraud? 50 times the total issued shares? 100 times? You can't say something isn't "X" if you are unable to articulate what would be X. Help me understand. What would be massive from the context of anyone invested in Global Links, or from the company's perspective?

The second is the SEC's role in this. I agree that it would have been simple to fix this a year and a half ago. The SEC could have investigated it as Senator Bennett instructed them, and realizing the huge overselling, could have stopped trading, backed out the trades, and adjusted everything. That would have been a regulator doing its job.

What it did do is investigate, learn about the problem, and then deny any problem existed, while covering it up. Most people understand that concept - a regulator lies and reassures us that all is well, when it knows very bad things are happening to the very investors it is chartered with protecting. Are you confused about that? I'm not. The SEC did NOT stop trading, DID NOT make Wall Street value the shares correctly, DID NOT admit that our concerns of MASSIVE overselling were legitimate. That is what the SEC DID NOT do.

We agree that the solution would have been simple.

The problem is that the SEC didn't even try to fix the problem. Instead, it allowed investors to buy worthless fake shares, it allowed Wall Street to take the money and refuse to deliver the shares for months and years, it allowed the company to be diluted by 350-fold, and it lied about there being a problem - a classic cover-up.

That is the second issue. First is what constitutes massive, second is SEC reaction.

It isn't hard for folks to get. We deserve a regulator who protects us, not one that lies to us and shields the bad guys from scrutiny and the financial consequences of their actions.

Is that confusing to you? Unclear?

Companies and investors deserve to be confident that what they are buying at least somewhat resembles what is advertised, and that it is delivered.

Is that confusing? It shouldn't be. the 1934 Act is pretty clear on the subject. You are supposed to get prompt delivery of what you bought, and it is supposed to be accurately represented. That is a reasonable expectation. In this case it didn't happen.

So, again, for simplicity: Two topics: !) What constitutes massive fraud; and 2) What should a regulator behave like.

The bit about "Dave and I" "need" to provide "readers" with more info is a red herring. You can go back and read the balance sheets yourself and see that the shares did not bring in $5 million dollars, so that "open question" is a canard. The shares were issued post split, but the company, or whoever the shares were issued to, received 350 times less for them then they should have. Simple.

The convoluted solutions are also a red herring. How about this: Settle the trades. All of them. Now. How does that work for you?

To really put it into elevator pitch format, here's my summary:

The shares of Global Links were massively failed, constituting a massive fraud against investors and the company - massive being the word I use for 25 times more shares sold than exist. The SEC should have fixed this, and instead let investors and the company take it in the rump, while the SEC insisted there was no problem, and allowed the "mistake" (if you buy that this was a mistake) to continue to present day. That decision allowed Wall Street to keep all the money and commissions, and fixed nothing - but rather, covered it up.

The end.

Anything more confusing you?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/25/2006 3:24 PM
Bob

I'm not trying to play games or to be cute with you. I'm also not about to filter through 10k's and 10q's as I suspect most of your readers wont. I generally trust the data that is provided by you and dave, but in this instance have trouble understanding how you interpret that very same data...

A clear example is the 27 million in fails. Now, at what price per share are you suggesting these 27 million share fails went out at? If some crooked Wall Street firm decided it was going to break the law and reak havoc on our financial system with a "MASSIVE FRAUD" then you've got one nasty math question to answer... Why did they choose Global links with a share price of $0.004 (that's 4 tenths of a penny per share). The great Wall Street crooks used this massive fraud to reep what? Let's see.... HMMMM. Oh yeah, that's right 27 million times .004 equals... you guessed it.. A whopping 108 thousand dollars ($108,000). Yes, this is the proof we needed that Wall Street and the SEC is rotten to the core.

Trust me on this, unless you bring more evidence to the table on this company, that speaks to Massive Fraud, you will set back your cause a year or more.

And while we are at it, stop acting like a silly little child spouting off terms like red herring and canard. The irony here is that you and dave are doing exactly what you accuse the SEC of doing. That is obfuscating the facts. That is what you are doing when you talk of share fails, but leave out the dollar value. I'm not saying the fails arent important and that they arent a problem if not illegal, but why would you choose to leave out the dollar values? Once again, get you godamn act together. What is going on is unacceptable slop. Most of us don't care anymore if you fancy yourself a rable-rouser, you've brought this issue too far to drop the ball now.

Take a page from Patrick Byrne. He is effective because he sticks to the facts. When he gets into areas of grey he lets you know. When he starts talking about things that sound a little crazy he acknowledges it... etc...etc...

Be as straight and thorrow on these issues and people will go to war for you. Flounder like you guys have on Global links and you will set yourself back. It's as simple as that.

Anything more confusing you?

Selene
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/25/2006 4:37 PM
Selene: You are crossing the line from reasonable to silly. To whit, the latest Forbes article nailed the fraud cold. Forbes got it. Despite your claims that nobody gets it, and that it is all confusing, and that we are setting our cause back for years...

Wrong.

They got it.

Now, as to dollar, here's your problem. The GLCKE shares were new shares. There was no way to innocently make a mistake on them. You couldn't have done it. The trade wouldn't have gone through, per the Forbes piece. So that hypothesis of yours is incorrect.

As to the dollars, I would suggest that your assumptions are also silly. Why? Because it is the size of the fraud in terms of shares, not in terms of dollars. Specifically, if they had correctly valued the company's shares, those new, post split shares should have been $1.40 or so. They sold $1.40 shares for 350 times less. That lowered the overall value of the company by a factor of 350. You can claim that the fraud was "only" a $108K fraud, but I'm afraid you are ignoring the obvious: That is based upon a pre-split price. They split. They did, whether you like it or not. They followed the rules, put out the releases, and the stock should have been trading as a $1.40 per share stock. It didn't because of massive dilution, caused by Wall Street. So do you want to use the other, equally correct number?

I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you, nor permit your insulting tone. If you can't behave in a civil fashion, I will flush you. Understand? Your statements are unsubstantiated, and your declarations that we are being set back years flies in the face of two articles from just today, one of which is in Forbes.

I think I will trust those, rather than an anonymous character on the web.

As to Dave and I requiring more proof of a massive fraud, if you had the market cap of your company cut overnight by a factor of 350, would you feel that was a massive fraud, or not? You never answered my earlier question: If 25 times a company's total outstanding shares isn't a massive fraud, what would be? I'm not interested in your sleight of hand, "if .004, then ONLY X" riff. If the company was worth $1.75 million yesterday, using your logic, it is today worth $5K, but no fraud was committed, certainly not massive. How about a 99.7% reduction in the company's market cap, overnight? Does that work for you? Or would it have to be more than 100% reduction?

Your argument is likely not well intentioned, however I will let it stand as it is a good indicator of how this has been trivialized.

You fail to address the SEC's allowing the cap to be cut by 99.7%. You fail to address their statements that there was no problem here. You fail to acknowledge that this killed the company's capability of raising cash from sale of stock. In other words, you ignore every aspect other than a flawed calculation based on pre-split values which were NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

Again, I recognize the sleight of hand. I just won't tolerate it for long.

Fair warning.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By upwardmo on 8/24/2006 6:05 PM
I hope Dave's info has been forwarded to Sen. Bennett. I am sure he will find it quite interesting.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Patchie on 8/24/2006 6:25 PM
mfairview,

The 26 Million were grandfathered but because they all occurred before being listed on SHO. The grandfather clause is not based on a single date in time but based on all trading leading up to a company achieving SHO status.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Millerd1 on 8/24/2006 6:28 PM
Something is still wrong, how does a promise of 3.3MM new shares coming to the market cure the about 10-17 MM drop from the 27MM high Feb 4? Three to five fold leverage, how?



How does that big (10-17 MM) a buy-in happen without a huge jump in stock price? Are there options games afoot here still? Are these just the DTCC recorded FTDs, yes I assume, therefore these brokers are handling the rest internally. Could these FTDs be cured using ITM calls, and did GLCK or GLCKE have options in the public market at this time? If publically traded options were not possible, could there be a private contract "option" seller facilitating such things?

Where is Ron Insana these days, he was the first to do TV on this?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Millerd1 on 8/24/2006 6:31 PM
What time clock are you guys using to time stamp these posts?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/24/2006 6:35 PM
millerd: There is no options trading in Global Links. The answer is likely in ex-clearing.

I have no idea what happened to the clock on the posts.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By MarionPolk on 8/24/2006 6:52 PM
The "E" on Global Links was added when the company failed to file financial reports on schedule.

There WERE no grandfathered fails, because the fails did not begin until AFTER the grandfather date which coincides with the effective date of Reg.SHO.

Prior to the reverse split, the company traded under another symbol, possibly gbll.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By What? on 8/24/2006 7:12 PM
Can anyone assure us that this not being done on a daily basis to listed stocks?
For instance millions of shares are being sold daily in say IBM, Microsoft, Lucent etc. and never delivered? Counterfeiting?

Is that where the billions in bonuses come from? From those ill gotten gains?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Millerd1 on 8/24/2006 7:20 PM
Then the ex-clearing FTD adds over and above this DTCC 10-27 MM FTD range! You seem to be inferring it explained the exclearing also. How do you see Bryne's 10-15 exclearing being involved in these FOIA numbers, those have to be addiitonal to these. WOW if the insider average is accurate a 10 to 15 factor on even this 10 MM, WOWee WOW at 10 to 15 factor on 27 MM!

I'm being told a reasonable percentage of owners can demand an audit of ownership, similar to what OSTK obtained as the company itself. These two GLCK owners have the right to and could demand an accounting of where the shares are held and where shares have been sold from.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By rtway1 on 8/24/2006 7:25 PM
Is there anyway posible that Cox can be confronted on this one on one or does he have to be sidetracked in the hallowed halls of the SEC. We always see these confrontations on the news with the cameras rolling, why not do the same. The shareholders of this company form a group and converge on the SEC with cams and mikes and the press. I know this sounds simplistic but not much has gotten traction so far. If that don,t work march on down to the office of the FBI,DOJ, postal authorities and the state atty. general. All the time have the cam and mike rolling so that they know they are being filmed and must answer.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Mississipibluffs on 8/24/2006 7:33 PM
The Department of Justice is part of the Executive branch of the U.S. government.

The Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, and the Solicitor General are all appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate.

Few holders of these posts have resigned in disagreement with a Presidential directive. But many remember just that happening in relatively recent history.

Archibald Cox served as Solicitor General for the DOJ in the Kennedy Administration.

In May 1973, he accepted appointment as the first Watergate special prosecutor.

On October 20, 1973, in an event remembered as the Saturday Night Massacre, President Nixon ordered Cox fired, due to Cox's insistence on obtaining secret White House tapes. Rather than comply with this order, both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus resigned. The order was ultimately carried out by the Solicitor General, Robert Bork.

Cox commented, "Whether ours shall be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people."

I wonder whether any of the present DOJ management would be willing to oppose their President, should he be persuaded to declare, for instance, that the maintenance of an orderly market would be impossible if the efforts of Senators Specter, Grassley and Hatch should prevail.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Wonder Boy on 8/24/2006 7:46 PM
Mississippi---
Specter, Grassley, and Hatch are a one trick pony----the possibly unjustified firing of an SEC employee. Unless they are willing to appoint an independent prosecutor and make things public, nothing will change.

Even if an entire herd of folks on Wall Street and in the SEC are found guilty, the Pres has the 'get out of jail free' card in the form of the Presidential Pardon. Remember Marc Rich?
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Madame Defarge on 8/24/2006 8:05 PM
rtway1- I think the only way now is a complete revolution. It may still be early enough for a political uprising but time for that is fleeing. Sadly the only option soon to be left is a total revolution. When a country refuses to enforces it's rules and laws in favor of the elite the masses are left with no other choice.

The guillotine , the guillotine! Time to sharpen that blade!
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By bobo on 8/24/2006 8:22 PM
My fear is that these turds crash the system and cause a depression so that they can get away with this. That's the only way they keep the money. Ironically, they then can buy assets for pennies on the dollar.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By rtway1 on 8/24/2006 8:32 PM
To prove the magnitude of this problem of counterfeiting one only has to look at the obvious. A day does not go by that you are not confronted on TV, newspaper, mail or word of mouth about the latest legal recourse that will heal your worst of wounds and sorrow. However there has been no lawyers jumping on the bandwagon to go after these slimeballs because they know the power they yield and the money and politics behind them. We need press first and then the lawyers will be like flies on HErbie and Jim.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/24/2006 9:01 PM
Okay Bob and Dave now we are talking...

Selene
Shhhh! The SEC at work, overheard in the halls By embraceyourinnerhillbilly on 8/24/2006 9:49 PM
Nothing to see here folks, keep moving, if we pretend it doesn't exist, perhaps it will go away. It isn't "news" if it only appears Online, as we have the Print/TV people on board ignoring the issue and painting its proponents as a bunch of disgruntled shareholder loons. Ha! FOIA my a$$.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/24/2006 11:26 PM
Bob and Dave

Actually, I'm still a little confused. Let's say glkc has 350 million shares issued and outstanding. If they reverse split 1:350 then for every 350 million shares we now have 1 million. Also, if the pre reverse split price was a dollar per share (market cap of 350 million dollars), then the post reverse split value should be roughly 350 dollars per share and still 350 million in market cap (1million shares times 350 dollars per share).

Now, let's assume Wall Street is honest, but very incompetent. GLKC goes post split febuary 1. Wall street drops the ball and continues to trade as if it's pre split. No harm no foul. Right? If a guy buys 1million shares at 1 dollar per share then he is buying 1/350 of the company and not 100% of the company because Wall Street never adjusted for the reverse split.

At this point I can understand how 50 million shares trade hands in one session because the activity in the market still reflects a 350 million share company. I understand that technically that this should not be the case, that in fact it should only be 1 million shares, but Wall Street dropped the ball and never updated the shares. Now, if you tell me our guy here bought 350 million dollars worth of stock and that 350 million dollars was represented by 1 million shares, then I'm totally with you, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying.

As for the amount of fails: I can't really get my hands around this one because it's unclear if the information on fails is accounting for them on a pre split or post split basis in any consistant fashion or any at all. One would generally want to assume that it is based on pre split share count (the 350 million shares and not 1 million shares outstanding).

What am I missing here?

As an aside, it is interesting to note that there could be some nefarious reasons why Wall Street would not want to recognize the reverse split, but both of you have not addressed this. I can't follow the money with you boys on this one. Other than the fails, which go from about 30 million slightly under 10% of shares (assuming Wall Street doesn't adjust and keeps a share count of 350 million) to 10 million or about 3% of fails, I just can't follow you.

To me, it looks like they are failing 3% of shares and that they are assuming 350 million shares. Now, this all gets thrown into a pickle when GLKC issues new shares. Post split 3 million thereabouts. Now if they only got a price based on pre split prices then clearly that's a problem, but up until this point neither of you have clearly articulated that position. Please understand that I support your efforts, but your discription of the GLKC situation to date has been very confusing to me and I wouldn't take issue unless I felt it was generally confusing to other readers...

Selene
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Selene on 8/25/2006 12:52 AM
_Now, let's assume Wall Street is honest, but very incompetent._

This is like saying "let's assume a prostitute will pay the man for having sex with her". If this is the basis of your argument, you have none.


rick
Bobo By rick on 8/25/2006 12:55 AM
Please strike this and my previous post (where I mistakenly put "Selene" under my name)

rick
Selene By rick on 8/25/2006 12:56 AM
_Now, let's assume Wall Street is honest, but very incompetent._

This is like saying "let's assume a prostitute will pay the man for having sex with her". If this is the basis of your argument, you have none.


rick
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By Patchie on 8/25/2006 3:04 AM
Marion,

Grandfathering was not restricted to just pre january 3, Grandfathering continues today in all trading. All FTD's that occur prior to any company getting listed on SHO is grandfathered. It could start today on a security where 8 days from today that security is listed as a threshold security. Every fail between now and 8 days from now is grandfathered. That is why the ammendment is out there to eliminate grandfathering otherwise, with the SEC claiming 99% of the ORIGINAL grandfathered fails have been closed, the 99% would infer grandfathering was no longer an issue but it is.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By InTheKnow on 8/25/2006 4:00 AM
In other wordS COUNTERFEITING SECURITIES PAYS and the worlds greatest Ponzi Scheme continues.
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By InTheKnow on 8/25/2006 4:08 AM
Let me explain the Ponzi Scheme and how it works on wall street.

1. You buy a stock and pay for it and you get an entitlement (IOU, FTD, empty journal entry, counterfeit share, etc)

2. You ask for delivery and what you get is delays more delays and then finally someone elses shares if you ever get delivery. Even if they buy your shares in then someone else is subsequently stuck without real shares.

3. That is a Ponzi Scheme. When you get paid off with someone elses shares!
Re: SEC Mendacity and Cover-Up: It Just Got Worse By InTheKnow on 8/25/2006 4:12 AM
Why do you think shares that you put in safekeeping in a brokerage house are "Accidently" put back in street name?

And the Ponzi Sheme continues.

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
Resources
Sanity Check Archive
Copyright © 2006 The Sanity Check   |  Privacy Statement  |  Terms Of Use