| | 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.

A Holiday Dear John Letter

Location: Blogs Bob O'Brien's Sanity Check Blog    
Posted by:   bobo 12/28/2006 12:26 PM
 -----------------

Sign the Market Reform Petition Now!: View it here.

To view the SIA NYSE member firm spreadsheet showing $63 billion in delivery and receipt failures as of Q2, 2006, click here.

Visit the new "SEC/Gary Aguirre Cover-Up" section of this site for a compilation of Mr. Aguirre's efforts to expose the SEC's alleged obstruction of justice and whitewashing of insider trading by some of the biggest names on Wall Street.

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

SEC, Washington, DC, Dec. 28. 2006

"Dear John:

John, you have always been important to the commission. Your juice is powerful, like single malt scotch, and your contributions to building the Wall Street we all know and love will always be foremost in our hearts and minds.

But something has changed for us. It's not the insider trading, the collusion, the obstruction of justice, the destruction of emails, the price fixing and racketeering that has us reconsidering our views. We know a playah's gotta play, as 'twere. Eggs need to be broken to make an omelet. Sometimes you need some space to grow and learn and progress.

No, it's more that even after firing the imbecile who felt you should be held accountable to the rule of law intended for the sheep, we keep seeing difficulty ahead for blindly following your lead, and have to decide if this relationship is really the right thing moving forward.

Look, we know you have done and will continue to do a lot for us. Our former colleagues are dragging down 7-figure salaries while tossing cards into hats and flying on private jets to seminars, and don't think that is lost on us. We know you are on our side, the side of God and country and freedom and grandmothers and puppies, not to mention international cartels of predatory hedge funds and banking syndicates. We know you do the lord's work tirelessly, ensuring that the masses don't get too big for their britches, and do things like hold free elections, or have the gumshin to require the royalty in NY to observe the rule of their laws. We know that you make them feel happy, while making all the tough decisions for them, behind the curtain. We know that if they were allowed to build any sort of meaningful wealth they would just squander it foolishly - far better that that money is under your responsible stewardship. Better that they believe they are in control, while they fight over stem cells or abortion or gay marriage. Anything to keep them occupied.

We too want to do our part in this ecosystem, protecting those that run the world from those who merely reside on their rented patch, constantly screeching demands, like colic infants.

But we need to seem to be doing something. We tried lying to congress, lying to the press, lying to investors, ignoring massive fraud, colluding to enable larceny, etc. Those worked for only so long. This is a new year coming up, and it's time for a change.

Therefore, with great regret, we will have to require you to pay some penalties equivalent to .0000000001 cent on every dollar you have made from your sophisticated and righteous, if misunderstood and perhaps technically illegal, activities. We know your sense of humiliation at having to do so, and trust that will serve as a powerful disincentive to those who aren't as far-sighted and virtuous as you and your Wall Street brethren - namely your small expendable competitors, and a few petty crooks we've been watching with amusement for the last decade as they rip grandma blind.

Of course, you won't have to ever admit you did anything "wrong," as we both know how antiquated the quaint notion of right or wrong is in this complicated world. Shades of gray, not black and white, that's the thing.

No, just as in the past, you will have to agree to put this disturbing period behind us all, pay the freight, and move forward to a brighter tomorrow - however be aware that we are vigilantly watching "things" now, which could signal more difficulty down the road - or not. The public has a short attention span, and your control of the media has been masterful in making everything seem like the histrionics of lunatics and kooks.

And have no fear, you won't actually have to pay the fines - they are more symbolic, and our accounting staff can't tell whether you ever paid or not anyway. That isn't the point of all this. The point is to signal to the folks at home that we are not just to be used as Kleenex and tossed aside, an irrelevant and complicit layer of bureaucratic regulatory sheen to an abjectly corrupt system. Tut tut, no siree, we are busy, on the job, and won't let you gang rape the country like drunk mountain men. Anymore. Really. And this time we sort of mean it, in a very sincere yet completely negotiable way. Unless you think we might be all the worse for it if you had to stop right away, in which case we can study the problem (not that there is one, nudge nudge wink wink) for awhile and confirm that we aren't just being hasty, our hormones getting the better of us, so to speak.

So please agree to pay your fines (again, don't worry, when we say pay, we mean it in more of a karmic way than a financial sense), and understand that we are not a doormat to be used by you whenever you need to brush some dung off your boots.

Really.

And if you keep doing the sorts of things which we neither require you to admit or deny guilt for doing, we will really get icky with you, and maybe write a harsh letter chastising you for your misbehavior. Think long and hard about how bad that will make you feel, and realize that this is your chance to change.

Respectfully,

Your milquetoast SEC staff, Suck-up-to-bigwigs Dept."
Copyright ©2006 Bob O'Brien
Permalink  |  Trackback
Comments (44)
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By old duffer on 12/28/2006 1:35 PM
John and his friends in the SEC should join Saddam.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By pjstevenson on 12/28/2006 3:16 PM
Send the letter!

oh, and btw, I am really amazed at Paulson's continuing conflict of interest.
From day1 to today:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/the-paulson-payoff-at-the_b_24379.html

I just hope that come 2007, New York's new governor, Elliot Spitzer, and the new state attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, will go after all of Wall Street's grifters - those who were recipients of those massive bonus packages.
Have you read this piece from Kunstler...it's great :
http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary19.html

"Pfizer Inc.'s former chief executive, Henry A. McKinnell, who was forced into early retirement in part because of investor anger about his rich retirement benefits, will get a retirement package totaling more than $180 million, a new regulatory filing shows.

McKinnell's package, which the company disclosed in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Thursday, included an estimated $82.3 million in pension benefits, $77.9 million in deferred compensation and cash and stock totaling more than $20.7 million."
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By TinHatTheories on 12/31/2006 2:12 PM
I would think the brokerages would be at risk of wire fraud for misrepresenting the purchases.

There defense would likely be "plausible deniability". They trusted the slips they got from some remote custodian that actually holds the shares. That's either the clearing brokerages (a list is here https://login.dtcc.com/dtcorg/binary/19003Part_Alpha.pdf) or a depository such as euroclear, clearstream or the dtc.

International stock loan and rep agreements will likely create an untraceable web of obligations. It would be hard to prove that they net out and that there are less shares than obligations. Even if you prove it, it would be difficult to prove who's fault it is.

My guess is the main perpetrators are the prime brokerages who decided to form a cartel to facilitate stock loans to hedge funds whether or not the shares existed. They did this by netting repo agreements.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By oldfeller on 12/31/2006 9:47 PM
Strange my last post appeared again in a different thread with a different date on it. Not that it matters, my opinion has not changed. I and millions of others are waiting impatiently for some action from congress. Anyone with Level 2 quotes and a lick of sense who watches how the game is played soon realizes the fix is in.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By TinHatFan on 1/1/2007 12:23 PM
Dear TinHatTheories,

You definately have something here. The Theories you pose open interesting questions. Although not certain if the NFI shareholder suit follows this premise. I believe the Prime brokers are being held liable based on clearing volume percentage on DTCC. But am not certain, as not much news is being published about this case. Are you an attorney? Does the suit have have merit? What are your opinions regarding this, and other suits being prepared ,and have yet to be filed> TIA.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By tinhattheories on 1/1/2007 1:31 PM
I'm not an attorney, but I believe this current situation is fairly recent (late 1990's) and coincided with the merger of the DTC and NSCC to form the DTC.

As I've dug, I've begun to believe that as big as the DTCC fails are, the Clearstream and prime brokerage fails could be bigger, but hidden by repurchase agreements, stock loans, broker to broker fails and layers of netting.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Just call me Charles on 1/1/2007 3:20 PM
In essence you have the world largest Ponzi Scheme going.

How do you ask is this a Ponzi Scheme?:
You pay your money for stock and an entitlement is put into your account unbeknowst to you. You think you actually got delivery of the stock, but no no.

Just ask for your stock and you will get all kinds of excuses and delays. Try and tansfer your stock between brokers and you will get the run around.

Try to get delivery and will have to wait and wait. Most likely you will be dilivered someone elses stock certificates. Thus the Ponzi, you get the other guys certificates.

SETTLE THE TRADES NOW!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Sledge on 1/2/2007 10:36 AM
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/01/business/Hedge.php
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By MrSerious on 1/2/2007 1:26 PM
Thank you TinHatFan and others for responding to my questions. I got to thinking about these questions when I realized the IRS started the Barry Bonds/BALCO investigation. And also with starting to get my papers ready for the next April 15th deadline.

So if the IRS wanted the taxable money that the ballplayers were giving to BALCO, wouldn't they want taxable money we all give to somebody for our stocks? Is it considered a sale? Aren't sales taxable?

Just trying to understand it all. The cartel thing sounds scarey. Thanks again.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By InTheKnow on 1/3/2007 5:11 AM
Stock market seduced by naked short-selling
Category: Finance, Business Suite

If you’re an investor whose knowledge of the stock market goes no further than the basic ‘buy low, sell high’ strategy, you need to read this. When it comes to dabbling in the market, many novice investors get in over their heads. Sometimes, just trying to interpret the financial news on your local paper’s business page can be overwhelming if you’re not literate in financial terminology.

But don’t let the learning curve throw you for a loop. Keeping abreast of the latest trends is the only way you can position yourself to come out ahead. Even Martha Stewart had the advantage of inside knowledge, albeit illegal insider knowledge. But what you may not know is that illegal business has more influence on a fluctuating market than you might think.
The latest questionable behavior is negatively impacting hedge funds. Known as naked short-selling, it isn’t nearly as good as it sounds. According to Overstock.com CEO, Patrick Byrne, it could be “the financial crime of the century,” he says. In an exclusive interview with rolling out, Byrne explains how savvy hedge fund managers and their clientele are plotting to get richer at the expense of ordinary Americans.

ro: How does naked short-selling work?

Patrick Byrne: It’s really simple: In a normal stock transaction, I sell you stock and you pay me for it. The moment [that] I take your money and you take the stock [is] called settlement. Believe it or not, it is possible for me to sell you stock and take your money but when the time comes to deliver the stock, I don’t deliver the stock. I just give you what’s basically an I.O.U. for the stock. You never know that and your broker doesn’t know that.

ro: How did this practice start?

Byrne: There’s actually a good reason for the loophole. You want the system to have a little bit of flexibility if someone signs the wrong form or something like that. [But] some of the big players on Wall Street are using this loophole to flood the market with IOUs in particular companies. And it has three effects: One, they’re just cheating the average investor. Secondly, if you do it enough and you water down the stock in a company, you can destroy a company. … But then the third thing is they are filling up the system with so many hundreds of millions IOUs that there may be more IOUs in the system than there is money in the system, which means that if the crime [is stopped], it will just [paper] lock the system.

ro: How can targeted companies defend themselves?

Byrne: Essentially [there is] nothing [they can do]. That’s why it’s the perfect crime, because you can’t protect yourself. The SEC [U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission] is really in the pocket of Wall Street. They were set up to protect the mainstream from Wall Street, but they’ve become what economists call a captured regulator. They’ve been captured by Wall Street. And not only will the SEC do nothing to help, if you complain they’ll often come in and investigate you for complaining. So it’s like some crooked sheriff whose been hired out by the drug dealers to provide security. The corruption is so bad, I believe this is going to turn into a scandal that makes Enron look like a Sunday picnic.

http://www.rollingout.com/exe_suite/finance/index.php?p=6198&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1#more6198
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By ginger on 1/3/2007 8:17 AM
Mr. Serious, Re the IRS (and The FED), take a look at Aaron Russo's documentary "America: Freedom to Fascism" ... it addresses your questions. Here is an online version.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=

The DVD is available too:


DVD Version:

http://www.freedomtofascism.com/downloads/dvd.php
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Your Humble Servant on 1/3/2007 10:43 AM
Dear Mr. Serious,

You don't get a 1099 when you buy shares only when you sell.

Dear Bobo,

Adding apples and oranges is something I stopped doing in the 2nd grade. Perhaps you will next perform a magic act involving the adding of total assets and liabilities and coming to another whacky conclusion? Both the failed to receive and failed to deliver numbers look like a pretty tiny numbers to me next to those trillions in securities. Or even next to the $440B in securities sold short.

I apologize for coming here and making comments about books and such that have nothing to do with this site or blog, except when you make such comments, apparently.


Your Humble Servant
Happy New Year Bunny Brigade By robelita on 1/3/2007 10:47 PM
This little gem is must reading and ancilliary to our cause-enjoy!


http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=SLGLF&read=36597
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Who_knows? on 1/4/2007 4:35 AM
http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/contrib.asp?ID=N00008072&Cycle=All

Notice the emergin pattern?
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Give it the Boot! on 1/4/2007 4:36 AM
REG SHO'S Grandfather Clause to Get the Boot?
Peter Chapman
Market makers are protesting a Securities and Exchange Commission proposal to tighten up its short sale rules.
Top wholesalers Knight Capital Group, UBS Securities and Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities are voicing their concerns in letters and in public forums over an SEC proposal to scrap an exception to Regulation SHO.
The two-year-old Reg SHO is the first major update of short sale regulation in the U.S. since 1938. It addresses failures to deliver and price tests.
"This is going to have a serious impact on our ability to make markets," Mark Madoff, co-director of trading at the family-owned firm, said of the SEC's plan. He spoke on a panel at the Security Traders Association's annual conference.
At issue is the regulator's plan to eliminate the so-called "grandfather" exemption of Reg SHO's Rule 203(b)(3). This loophole allows a market maker to avoid delivering a security he has sold short. The exemption applies only to certain securities under specific circumstances.
Rule 203(b)(3) requires broker-dealers to close out their short positions in so-called "threshold" securities if they have failed to deliver the security to the buyer within 13 settlement days.
Threshold securities are those that have relatively high rates of non-delivery. They are typically less-liquid stocks that can be difficult to buy or borrow.
The self-regulatory organizations publish daily lists of their threshold securities. In total, about 300 names make the lists on any given day. They include exchange-listed as well as OTCBB stocks.
Currently, a broker-dealer is exempted from Rule 203(b)(3) if it shorts a security that became a threshold security in the days following the trade.
The exemption was granted to help market makers provide liquidity in thinly traded names without fear they will suddenly be forced to close out short positions.
Reg SHO has reduced the number of fails to deliver-the National Securities Clearing Corporation estimates only one percent of all trades result in fails to deliver-but the SEC wants to go further.
It believes most of the remaining fails-to-deliver stem from the exceptions for pre-threshold securities and options market makers.
"In fine-tuning Reg SHO," SEC commissioner Roel Campos remarked in a speech this summer, "our efforts are targeted at protecting a small universe of thinly-capitalized securities from abusive trading wherein the level of fails to deliver can harm the market for the security."
Knight, one of the largest market makers of thinly-traded securities, disagrees. It told the SEC that eliminating the ability of market makers to satisfy investor needs "will undoubtedly lead to less liquidity, greater volatility, and widening of spreads."
The elimination, according to the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), would also lead to a rash of short squeezes. And preventing short squeezes was why the SEC created the grandfather exemption in the first place, it said. A short squeeze occurs when shorts are forced to buy in their positions.
Michael Wolk, a Washington-based attorney with Foley & Larder, and an expert on Nasdaq issues who often represents the Security Traders Association, repeated SIFMA's position.
"The reason the grandfather exemption came about," Wolk explained at the STA's annual bash, "was because it was felt that a requirement that firms automatically close out their positions or borrow would cause wild price movements if everyone closed out their positions at the same time. Nothing has changed since [the SEC] first felt that way."
In its efforts to tighten up Reg SHO, the SEC is also considering rescinding an exemption for options market makers. At presstime, it had not made a decision on either issue.
(c) 2006 Traders Magazine and SourceMedia, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.tradersmagazine.com
http://www.sourcemedia.com


Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By gregcable2002 on 1/4/2007 5:15 AM
Poor Knight,if they do away with the grandfather clause they will have to actually buy all those shares they sold investors,we can't have that,knight will go broke.poor baby,I hope they go broke and go to jail,YOU CAN'T SELL SHARES AND NOT DELIVER THEM.PERIOD.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By gregcable2002 on 1/4/2007 5:23 AM
One more thing,if someone wants to buy a share of stock and theres none available,guess what? They can't buy it,don't sell it if you can't locate it.Sounds easy enough to me.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By InTheKnow on 1/4/2007 5:40 AM
Better yet Greg... if someone wants to buy stock and they can't locate it them raise the offer and let the seller get a better price for it. That is called SUPPLY and DEMAND. Do you hear that SEC THE LAW of SUPPLY and DEMAND.

Let the investors make a buck for once for that is why they are investing. Do you hear that SEC? Level the playing field for investors and not the Wall Street Casino!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By gregcable2002 on 1/4/2007 7:13 AM
If you sell something,anything,and the law says you must deliver that thing within a certain period of time and you don't deliver and you don't give a full refund you are stealing plain and simple.The thieves can kick and scream all they want,bottom line is they stole your money for nothing more then a promise to give you something someday,that is of course the company that you bought shares in hasn't gone bankrupt,which is what happens because they make it happen.Wake up America!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By bobo on 1/4/2007 7:58 AM
Humble servant:

The DTCC uses the number of fails to deliver and to receive as their total $6 billion number. I didn't come up with the reporting metric - they did. If you don't like it or consider it childish, super, tell them, not me.

That $63 billion number is pre-CNS netting. After CNS netting, it drops to about $6 billion, which is what one would expect given that CNS netting "handles" about 96% of all trades.

But that $63 billion is today's mark-to-market value, not the actual value at which the delivery failures took place. That is 5, 10, 20 times higher.

In what universe does a $63 billion, or $630 billion, or far larger, refusal to deliver what was paid for, constitute a minor problem? I mean, other than in nation-state deficit terms?

What is the total NY budget? State of NY budget?

What if $63 billion went missing in the banking system? You know, just failed to make it to the vaults because the member banks embezzled the bucks, and left IOUs instead?

Are you serious with this? Really? Do you even know how many stock trades settle per day? Around $100 billion. The SBP satisfies roughly $1 billion of fails. Which leaves about $1 billion per day that the NSCC calls fails, using both fails to deliver and receive. That seems small until you consider that $96 billion or so is netted via CNS netting every day, wherein sells are minuses, and shares held long are pluses, and whether the sale is a failure or not, offset the same way by a plus...In other words, 96% of all settlements take place in CNS, which doesn't report or distinguish fails that I can tell. Of those that aren't handled by that system, 50%, or rather, $2 billion of the $4 billion CNS doesn't handle, fail. $1 billion satisfied by the SBP, the other billion FTDs and FTRs.

Most would be alarmed by a 50% failure rate in any industry. You aren't. How surprising. I guess if your business is stealing fifty cents for every dollar you take in, you will fight pretty hard to keep the rubes from figuring it out, and to keep the bucks coming in, huh?
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By InTheKnow on 12/28/2006 4:28 PM
and what does the investor get? ....

THE FINGER!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By BY WHOM? on 12/28/2006 4:29 PM
ALL CONCERNED!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Hotty The Beautiful on 12/28/2006 9:18 PM
Here: http://cmkxtruthandjustice.blogspot.com
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Stabs from the past on 12/29/2006 6:15 AM
http://thestreet.netscape.com/pf/comment/cfeatures/936517.html

Creme_Delacramer: One thing you have to understand is the reason why I have always admired Bill's work tremendously is that he is not afraid to speak his mind about shorts. I have to tell you I am scared to do so. I am always afraid I will be cut off by managements or be investigated. He is very brave and very good--and I am not just putting on some show about this.


http://www.fool.com/community/pod/2000/000908.htm
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By wilburonefo4 on 12/30/2006 5:33 PM
Dear Bobo,

When you take a break from writing books under phony names and recommending them under other phony names would you mind looking up how to spell "gumshin".

Or did you invent a new word?

Thanks a bunch,
Love Wilbur
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By SteveM on 12/29/2006 7:32 AM
Dear Gary,

Kettle, Pot, Black...

Or have you invent a new reality?

Name withheld for lack of other's interest in my identity,
SteveM
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Niel Storts on 1/1/2007 11:32 AM
Bob, you know this letter displays courage that the s.i.c. (s.i.c.) whores would never have. Notice that little g.w. visited here with his usual bit of paranoid projection. Did you ever think anyone with such a sick, twisted, sense of reality could actually exist outside of the confining walls of an asylum?
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Wilbur smells on 12/29/2006 12:45 PM
Wilbur.... does it bother you that Bobo has a real readership... while all you have is multiple id's? None of us will miss you if you visit the Bermuda Triangle and choose to stay.

I'm glad that we found out your had multiple id's... much better than numbers of persons being so demented. Happy New Year.. try some Prozac.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Bobo on 12/29/2006 1:58 PM
Hey GW/Wilbur, how's the non-followed blog going? Did the hedge funds get you a real gig so they would have a mechanism to pay you via a pub for your important work? I suppose I could be creating dozens of sock puppets to glowingly review my crappy derivative pap, or to revile my foes, but frankly that speaks to a sort of neurosis or chemical imbalance (sniffy sniffy, tappy tappy?!?) best left unexplored.

Carry on the important work, bad dye job and marginal aptitude worn like a badge of courage. Did I spell dye right? I don't spell check these, and I might have gotten something off here as well. Ever-vigilant we must all be. Maybe while you try to figure out how to NEVER discuss the $63 billion in fails captured in the SIA spreadsheet, while typing your next non-revelation with head firmly up a hedge fund's bottom, you can perfect that aspect of your craft, or perhaps bully your way through another dozen bogus Wiki entries.

Carry on with that, and the 40 posts per day on the OSTK board - while claiming it isn't vocational. Maybe you can review www.Antisocialmedia.net's blistering expose on 'lilGW's pathetic non-career and various pathologies next? I'd like that.

Start off with, "It may be Gary's IP, but I was just passing by and used the computer" or similar twaddle - those always tickle my funny bone.

Ta ta, loser boy. Enjoy whatever holiday those who lie, thieve, defraud, and generally screw their fellow man celebrate.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By rtway1 on 12/29/2006 5:32 PM
Bravo Bobo! That was one of your best for G.W. I really do however wish him a very shitty New Year.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By CMElec on 12/29/2006 6:23 PM
We can say 2006 ended very appropriately for one criminal. Too bad he was a foreigner. Maybe that wave of justice will reach America and we will see some of the local crooks hanging.... I'll settle for jail and felony charges. One could only hope.... which can work if effort is applied along with it. Best to all in '07.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By oldfeller on 12/29/2006 11:06 PM
I feel like I`m watching godfather II. We will be a legitimate family in 10 years. Well shucks we tried, give us another 10 years, we are teaching our kids to be more legit than us. We are determined to stop stealing your money at some point in history but things keep coming up.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By SkunkJuice! on 12/30/2006 8:29 AM
Gary has no readers except for Tony Ryals and some sockpuppets.

LMFAO at Wibur the sockpuppet. Funny.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By bobo on 12/30/2006 8:52 AM
'lilGW/Wilbur, this is the administrator. As has been the policy of this blog since inception, we won't tolerate clogging or off-topic diatribes. Your two messages, the latter of which was deleted, qualify as both. If you would like to discuss the issue presented in the blog, you may. If you wish to hurl invective and insults, confine your activities to forums that celebrate that, such as the now un-read Yahoo boards - now that InvestorVillage.com is the board of choice, the bashers there have only themselves to talk to, which is why I suppose you are here trying to drive traffic there. Please stop. It is embarrassing. And will get y ou deleted every time.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Hypocrites 'r Us on 12/30/2006 1:52 PM
Dear admin,

It appears you apply your "policy" in a rather hypocritical manner.

For example, your own first reply to wilbur and pretty much all the following replies to wilbur (SteveM, Niel Storts , Wilbur smells, rtway1 and SkunkJuice).

So I'd have to say you do tolerate off-topic diatribes as well as clogging.

Not there can be much in the way of comments on your "article" which consisted almost entirely of a diatribe in the form of an imaginary letter.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Paleeze on 12/30/2006 3:03 PM
Hypocrite why don't you take your bullcrap to the Weiss blog, for they need more posters over there.

You and cohorts can spend your time there bashing people who are demanding that regulators actually do the job that the Secruities Act mandates them to do.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Haha on 12/30/2006 3:09 PM
We have more comments due the Wibur/Hypocrite team than lilGW has in total on his last 5 or so blogs!

Totally pathetic!
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Bobo on 12/30/2006 3:37 PM
It is sort of interesting how "someone" has been assigned to try to disrupt this venue. Perhaps that "someone" can explain why 'lilGW has maintained that NSS is a non-issue/figment of our imaginations, when we now know that it is AT LEAST $63 billion per the SIA spreadsheet, just for NYSE member firms, and not counting pre-netting, international clearing firms, etc. etc. etc.

That would actually be on point. As would a discussion of why the SEC fired an attorney and then misled, if not lied, to Congress about his competence and honesty. As would virtually anything but a hack, second string NY business writer and his use of sock puppets to attack his adversaries and promote his rather pedantic screeds.

How about this: Why did so many of 'lilGW's reviewers suddenly get pulled from Amazon, disappearing in a flash, virtually immediately after Antisocialmedia.net exposed that they were almost certainly 'lilGW himself? That's a good question, huh? Or why does Matanmoreland, who that same site has established is also 'lilGW (well enough for my belief system, anyway), continues to revert the naked short selling entry to a pack of lies featuring the completely off-topic work of....Gary Weiss?

Yawn. Bad dye jobs, lies, marginal aptitude, and perhaps most sinful, a certain educated clumsiness with the language that is his clay...all in all, not worth the time to discuss further. Call it an executive decision.

And hypocrite, any more of your nonsense and you will be moved to Doggerel, where similarly inspired and interesting bits reside.

Have a happy new year.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Happy New Year on 12/30/2006 4:44 PM
I see Bobo continues his fine tradition of commenting and then telling anyone with a contrary view that they need not bother replying. Then he acts all surprised that nobody can answer his questions.

Keep pretending you are looking for answers Bobo.

If you ever actually want any you know where to go to find the answers.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By rtway1 on 12/30/2006 4:49 PM
Hypocrites, why not post some answerto the topic of the disparity in the ftds? I can write to Bobo all day long about info that will be beneficial to our cause, unfortunately it is sidetracked by jagdorks like you and Gary who contribute nothing other than scripted no proof bullshit. In case I forget have a shitty New Year. Stay away from that white powdery snow it can be slippery and dangerous. On the second thought have a snowball fight.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Bobo on 12/30/2006 5:36 PM
Happy New Year, I'm sorry, did you actually provide any commentary of substance on the $63 billion fails data from the SIA? I mean, you claim you want answers, seems like that is a rather significant one to the question, "How large are the fails in just NYSE firms, not counting pre-netting, ex-clearing, or international clearing?" Why don't you try addressing that for starters, instead of the rote "Bobo is a kook" BS? It wears a bit thin when folks can view the data themselves, in our FOIA section, as well as at the SIA website in the enclosed links - I mean the "Patty is a loon and Bobo is a nut" thing played way better when the data was hidden and unknown. Now we have Congress essentially saying the SEC is lying, and data from the industry showing a centi-billion if not trillion dollar problem, and you keep beating the same tired drum as though none of it was a mouse click away.

How's that working for you? Never mind.

The funny thing is that coming here and making accusations about books and whatnot has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this blog or site. It isn't dissenting anything, it is drivel designed to disrupt. Posting insults and diatribes is different than a dissenting point of view - most second graders can make that distinction. It seems odd you can't. Then again, I get all kinds of readers.

You are free to post data that rebuts the SIA and FOIA data - so far nobody has. Maybe you will be the first. Have at it. But be warned, this isn't the Yahoo boards where you can clog and rant and hurl feces. Got substance? Knock yourself out. Want to post nonsense? You will be deleted. Pretty clear.

Enjoy your holiday.
The smell of formentation By RealityIsPerception on 12/31/2006 11:00 AM
What amuses me to no end is that Gary and the hedgies honestly believe that if they just do everything the can think of to continue fomenting their lie, that they'll actually influence the market behavior of OSTK and NFI. But the harder the try, the more frustrated thye become, and the more obvious their nefarious agenda illustrates itself, contradicting the very objective behind their onnslaught, to forment their own version of the truth about the future of these companies.

Just one little problem with that...the truth, and the facts, are now speaking for themselves. The blog and IV board have gotten well past that conclusion, and now all continued attempts to forment their lie is counterproductive...gee, I'm thinking, maybe, just maybe, this time, it really is different. LOL
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By InTheKnow on 12/31/2006 11:33 AM
His vendetta against OSTK reminds me of the vendetta Carol Remond has against JAGH. What is their motive for the vendettas and what do they have to gain?

What is more interesting is that both their subpeonas were squashed. Why and by whom? These are things that must be answered by the SEC.
Re: A Holiday Dear John Letter By Mr. Serious on 12/31/2006 2:02 PM
Can anyone answer some questions for me?

Is a completed 1099 or 1099-R Form, or any other completed stock broker/tax form, that is submitted to the IRS, a legally binding form?

Say I bought 10K shares of OSTK in 2003, 20K in 2004, and 15K in 2005. Etrade, Scottrade, Ameritrade, or WhoeverTrade would have to send me a 1099 or 1099-R each year verifying these purchases. I would then have to submit that form, under law, to the IRS with my 1040 Form. This 1099 Form will show the number of shares I purchased and a CUSIP # for each transaction.

So then I sign my 1040 under penalties of perjury and my CPA signs it. To me, these signatures show these forms to be legally binding. Is that correct?

Isn't this tax filing proof of our shares or our intent to purchase shares? Every single year?

Are Etrade, Scottrade, Ameritrade, or WhoeverTrade equally under penalties of perjury and required to sign off on these?

Can or does the IRS ever audit Etrade, Scottrade, Ameritrade, or WhoeverTrade, to verify such shares were sold?

Thanks,
Mr. Serious

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
Sanity Check Archive