|
Post by jannikki on Sept 24, 2006 9:47:55 GMT -4
How can we force regulators to put integrity and transparency into our market?
|
|
|
Post by midget on Sept 24, 2006 13:59:13 GMT -4
Is there anyway that CMKX, Overstock, and other company's that have been NSS'ed combine forces to fight this SCUM.
|
|
|
Post by kranker on Sept 24, 2006 15:41:16 GMT -4
Any idea when the John O'Quinn and Wes Christian consortium will unleash hell on the financial terrorists? I can "feel" it is CLOSe.
|
|
|
Post by thunkerdrone on Sept 24, 2006 16:33:02 GMT -4
USXP reportedly sued a shorter a couple of years back and won. They were awarded a huge judgement for damages. Do you know if USXP has ever actually collected on any of that money?
|
|
|
Post by BigPuddin on Sept 24, 2006 17:56:45 GMT -4
Do you know Kevin West? And if so, what is you impression of him and his abilities to perform as CEO of CMKX? TIA -Puddin
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 20:35:21 GMT -4
Chairman Cox recently attempted to impose oversight and regulation of the hedge fund industry. The regulation was fought in court, resulting in victory for those in opposition to mandatory registration. Cox stated that the SEC would not appeal the decision because it didn't expect to win. Why would they "throw in the towel" so easily? Was this a poor attempt to show a "pretense of enforcement and oversight" by the Commission? ---------------------------- I believe that the rule was so poorly crafted that it was doomed from the beginning. Frankly, the notion that those most guilty of violating the rules, wouldn’t simply alter their redemption policy to evade registration, or move their fund offshore where no registration was required, is so dim as to defy logic. If I’m a lawbreaker, why wouldn’t I evade it? What’s to stop me? A simple change to my redemption rules, and presto, I don’t have to register. This is another example of policing the law-abiding, who present no danger, while offering the bad guys enough loopholes to drive a big-rig through. Therefore, it being thrown out was meaningless. It was a non-rule crafted in a poor manner which protected nobody. This is typical of the Beltway when it wants to appear to be doing something, but in fact wants nothing to change.
|
|
|
Post by jannikki on Sept 24, 2006 20:41:00 GMT -4
Chairman Cox recently attempted to impose oversight and regulation of the hedge fund industry. The regulation was fought in court, resulting in victory for those in opposition to mandatory registration. Cox stated that the SEC would not appeal the decision because it didn't expect to win. Why would they "throw in the towel" so easily? Was this a poor attempt to show a "pretense of enforcement and oversight" by the Commission? ---------------------------- I believe that the rule was so poorly crafted that it was doomed from the beginning. Frankly, the notion that those most guilty of violating the rules, wouldn’t simply alter their redemption policy to evade registration, or move their fund offshore where no registration was required, is so dim as to defy logic. If I’m a lawbreaker, why wouldn’t I evade it? What’s to stop me? A simple change to my redemption rules, and presto, I don’t have to register. This is another example of policing the law-abiding, who present no danger, while offering the bad guys enough loopholes to drive a big-rig through. Therefore, it being thrown out was meaningless. It was a non-rule crafted in a poor manner which protected nobody. This is typical of the Beltway when it wants to appear to be doing something, but in fact wants nothing to change. Typical, just like Reg. SHO. They want to look like they are protecting investors, but they are really doing nothing.
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 20:59:05 GMT -4
The DTCC wants to terminate paper certificates. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think they will be able to achieve this goal? I think that paper certificates are the last proof of delivery available to retail investors, and as such, stand in the way of the system ripping investors off via non-delivery. That the DTCC, owned by the brokers doing the ripping off, want to eliminate them, should surprise nobody. I have yet to find an instance where the DTCC didn’t ultimately get what they want. This time is likely no different. They want to eliminate the proof of delivery, and are pressing hard to make that reality. Nobody is fooled as to why, at least not in my house.
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 21:01:44 GMT -4
Can you explain how manipulators "paint the tape"? --------------------------- In the old days, painting the tape referred to doing related party trades to increase the frequency of a symbol’s appearance on the ticker, thereby causing speculators to get into the trading, thinking that a pool must be preparing to run it up, or that someone must know something. The pool operator would “paint” the tape with increasing frequency, in order to play to human nature. Worked every time. Nowadays, it refers to placing MOC (Market On Close) orders in likely excess of demand, causing the final trades to be lower then the last legitimate trades. We see this in highly manipulated stocks, where even a few cents makes a huge difference in the cash collateral requirements for the manipulators’ overnight margin.
|
|
|
Post by kranker on Sept 24, 2006 21:03:02 GMT -4
This whole stock counterfeiting thing is like a bad dream. The cop is corrupt The politicians are corrupt The media is corrupt My question: Am I dreaming, or is this really happening?
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 21:03:30 GMT -4
Tell us about "Symphony of Greed". When do you expect to complete it? ---------------------- Symphony of Greed – Financial Terrorism and Super-Crime on Wall Street, is my effort to explain everything you ever wanted to know about the market in one easy slug. I realized as I spoke with folks from the industry, as well as those with no experience, that nobody really understood how all the pieces fit together and worked. I heard all these talking heads assuring us that naked short selling was way too complicated to even try to describe, and that it was highly technical, blah blah blah, and I sort of went, “No it isn’t.” And I realized that by having learned all about the history of the street, and how the pieces fit together, what seemed simple and clear to me was muddled and confusing to the average Joe – and I set out to write a book that would change that. That would explain in clear terms how the markets work, what the different pieces are supposed to do, who the players are, and how it has all run dangerously off the tracks. I’m stalled, simply because I have doubts that any publisher will ever touch it. The last thing anyone wants in the media is a thorough explanation of how and why the markets are larcenous, offering concrete evidence on a wide scale that it is a wealth redistribution system – from your retirement to Wall Street’s coffers. Once you know its history, you understand why the SEC does nothing to protect investors, you understand how long this has been going on, you grasp the society of sociopathology that is Wall Street’s upper echelon, you get how the same names have been gaming the system for decades, and how in spite of all the outcry, how it never has materially changed. I could complete it in 30 days of hard writing, but my attention has been focused on the NCANS letter, and a few other projects. My fiction novel, “The Hedge” faces some of the same barriers – one agent said it was “riveting” but she was afraid to touch it as it was scary – too realistic. I thought crafting a fiction novel that was so easily confused with reality was the whole point. It actually scared the crap out of her, and she point blank told me it was as good or better than anything she’s read from any of the big names, but that she was afraid to have her name on it. I think she overreacted. Then again, lots of people get scared by the premise of clandestine groups in our government using the markets to fund regimes and black ops that they can’t get easy approval for out of Congress, and partnering with the mobs of various nations to further their ambitions. Go figure. At the time I wrote it I was making it up. Turns out, a year and a half later, I was actually dangerously close to describing reality. Some have suggested self-publishing, which is always an option for both books. I’d rather have a publisher pick it up, for several reasons. First, while I can comfortably say I would get quite a few thousand sold via the website due to the following, it’s nice to have a separate company back it. Second, to take it to the next level, I need a full-time group dedicated to making it a blockbuster. I have access to some remarkable distribution, however it takes a team to move the ball down the field. For those that haven’t gotten a taste of it, you can read the intro chapter at www.TheSanityCheck.com under Symphony of Greed. Thanks for asking.
|
|
|
Post by jannikki on Sept 24, 2006 21:03:42 GMT -4
The DTCC wants to terminate paper certificates. What are your thoughts on this? Do you think they will be able to achieve this goal? I think that paper certificates are the last proof of delivery available to retail investors, and as such, stand in the way of the system ripping investors off via non-delivery. That the DTCC, owned by the brokers doing the ripping off, want to eliminate them, should surprise nobody. I have yet to find an instance where the DTCC didn’t ultimately get what they want. This time is likely no different. They want to eliminate the proof of delivery, and are pressing hard to make that reality. Nobody is fooled as to why, at least not in my house. I have a paper registration/title that shows ownership of my automobile. I have a deed that proves I own my home/property. Why should ownership of my stock be any different? If I choose to ask for a paper certificate to prove my ownership, how can they legally deny my request, unless the whole system goes paperless?
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 21:04:29 GMT -4
How long after the DTCC and friends eliminate certificates do you think it will take for a meltdown to occur, due to people believing they can no longer make any money on the stockmarket? ----------------------------- Never. Because there is an entire industry devoted to perpetuating the myth that you can make lots of money in the market. Same reason people still go to Vegas and Atlantic City in droves. The myth of the big winner sitting at the tables, the envy of all, is a powerful archetype. And you have the entire financial press dedicated to furthering the notion that you need to have your money in the market to be responsible in retirement planning. It’s a compelling image. There will always be more rubes for the three card monte game, and there will always be more suckers who believe that the markets are something besides a threshing machine where we are the grain.
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 21:06:23 GMT -4
Is there anyway to force congress to investigate the SEC, the selective enforcement of their own rules, and the selective punishment [What little there is] that seams to be minuscule? ------------------------ Hey Midget. We can write our congressmen and demand a special prosecutor, which may or may not work, at the end of the day. As to individual/private action, a Writ of Mandamus is a good start, as is a lawsuit against the SEC for failing to write rules consistent with the Securities Act of 1933, and the 1934 Securities Exchange Act. Unfortunately, no attorney will touch it as there’s no money in it. Attorneys follow the money. They make me seem like I lack cynicism. I'll keep everyone posted if I find one of the last honest men... quote bracket edit, -k
|
|
|
Post by bobo on Sept 24, 2006 21:07:28 GMT -4
When a company declares a reverse split (such as Global Links), in order to gain better financing options, does this not give the counterfeiters a reprieve? Those who failed to deliver will never have to replace what they did not own initially? Further, they continue to drive the price back down to pre-split levels. ------------------------ A declaration of a reverse split has no impact on manipulators. In GL’s case, they did a 1 for 350 reverse split, and the shares should have traded for 350 times more than they closed at the day before the split. The market makers, for whatever reason, didn’t adjust the price up, which DID create a windfall for anyone hugely short the stock. The market cap was slashed by 99.7% overnight, making any short position insanely profitable – guaranteed. As an aside, I have yet to see any scheme or mechanism that works in “destroying” manipulative shorts. And believe me I’ve heard and considered them all. My conclusion is that you can’t do anything to buck that system, as you are up against more than a few slimeball hedge funds – you are up against the entire Wall Street apparatus. It’s going to take lawsuits and discovery to break the back of these parasites, and by the time that happens, they will have invented a new device with which to cheat. That’s the history of the markets. Always has been.
|
|