Post by kranker on Dec 10, 2005 16:47:09 GMT -4
by MineralsRus
I just spent 20 minutes on the phone with a young lady who works in the Division of Market Regulation for the SEC.
I ask her "What is the SEC's definition of O/S"? She was very polite and explained to me "Stock currently held by investors, including restricted shares owned by the company's officers and insiders as well as those held by the public."
I ask her if the shares in investors brokerage accounts were included in the O/S? She said "Yes, any shares that the company issues would include the shares in peoples brokerage accounts."
I ask her if a company puts out a PR that has the wording (excludes shares from "street name") does this indicate that the shares are not apart of the O/S? She ask " what company are you referring to"? I said "It doesn't matter, I just had a general question." After going around this subject for quite sometime, she gave in and repeated the above answer that I had earlier question regarding the O/S.
I then had a question concerning the shares in the Brokerage accounts and if they would be covered if they were
naked shorted, her tone of voice changed like someone had turned on a switch.
She ask me if I was talking about CMKX? I would not tell her and just tried to use examples of any company and not 'CMKX' that she was eluding to. She said "Every company was different". I ask her what she meant by making a statement like that? She said well, if your talking about CMKX then we are not allowed to talk about them, and we would be talking an entirely different issue.
I said that I didn't want to talk about any company in particular just wanted to know if shares in a brokerage,
if they were naked shorted, would they be covered? She tried to stay away from answering this direct question
and kept eluding to CMKX.
Now, she had my attention! I ask her what would make CMKX so different then any other company? She said that she could not tell me because they were halted from trading and could not go into any discussions concerning CMKX. I again went back to the naked short question and ask her if investors were covered if it were determined that there was a naked short issue with the brokerage accounts. She said "Absolutely, they would settle through the DTCC just like any other share."
I was still curious about CMKX and her statements concerning why they were different so I tried to go into those particulars. Again, she would not tell me and said "CMKX is a unique situation and there were fundamental issues with the company that had to be answered"
(I assumed that since she said fundamental issues, that she was talking about filings and claims)
At this point I decided to tell her that I was connected with the National Coalition Against Naked Shorting.
She knew now that I was going to get into the subject of
Illegal Naked Shorting in general and giggled.
She said, NCANS has raised some issues with this subject and there is definately alot of buzz around the office
and you can bet that the SEC is looking into alot of the issues that the group has raised and the SEC encourages people to speak out on legitimate issues on both sides of the issue concerning naked short selling.
(I found it quite interesting that she referred to the National Coalition Against Naked Shorting as 'NCANS')
I kept hitting her with questions concerning Illegal Naked Short Selling and she kept coming back to me with how much the SEC was behind the investors and wants to stop the abuses in the market. She said she was very happy that people were getting involved and she wishes more people would write and call their congress to get them involved and knew there was a growing base of concerned people.
I said you better believe we are growing and we are not going to stop until we win, and REG SHO was a joke!
She said they were seriously looking at REG SHO and how they could change it because there is a growing concern with the public as the public is starting to understand and educate themselves on the abuses.
I wanted to let her know that I was a balanced individual and explained that I understood and continue to understand that there are also Scam public companies that were also stealing money from the investors. She seemed to be very receptive and quite relaxed once she realized that I was not just seeing one side of the equation.
She said it takes open minded people from both sides of the issue to correct the past and current issues that plague the market. I definately agreed with her assessment and she agreed with mine as well.
The remaining time was spent conversing about how people needed get involved before changes were made and encouraged us (investors and the General public) to get the word out on the concerns we have with the illegal Naked Shorting issue.
We also talked about Social Security and how this issue will determine if privatizing is the way to go. We both agreed that this would be the opportune time for all of us to get involved so we would end up with the best plan.
I just spent 20 minutes on the phone with a young lady who works in the Division of Market Regulation for the SEC.
I ask her "What is the SEC's definition of O/S"? She was very polite and explained to me "Stock currently held by investors, including restricted shares owned by the company's officers and insiders as well as those held by the public."
I ask her if the shares in investors brokerage accounts were included in the O/S? She said "Yes, any shares that the company issues would include the shares in peoples brokerage accounts."
I ask her if a company puts out a PR that has the wording (excludes shares from "street name") does this indicate that the shares are not apart of the O/S? She ask " what company are you referring to"? I said "It doesn't matter, I just had a general question." After going around this subject for quite sometime, she gave in and repeated the above answer that I had earlier question regarding the O/S.
I then had a question concerning the shares in the Brokerage accounts and if they would be covered if they were
naked shorted, her tone of voice changed like someone had turned on a switch.
She ask me if I was talking about CMKX? I would not tell her and just tried to use examples of any company and not 'CMKX' that she was eluding to. She said "Every company was different". I ask her what she meant by making a statement like that? She said well, if your talking about CMKX then we are not allowed to talk about them, and we would be talking an entirely different issue.
I said that I didn't want to talk about any company in particular just wanted to know if shares in a brokerage,
if they were naked shorted, would they be covered? She tried to stay away from answering this direct question
and kept eluding to CMKX.
Now, she had my attention! I ask her what would make CMKX so different then any other company? She said that she could not tell me because they were halted from trading and could not go into any discussions concerning CMKX. I again went back to the naked short question and ask her if investors were covered if it were determined that there was a naked short issue with the brokerage accounts. She said "Absolutely, they would settle through the DTCC just like any other share."
I was still curious about CMKX and her statements concerning why they were different so I tried to go into those particulars. Again, she would not tell me and said "CMKX is a unique situation and there were fundamental issues with the company that had to be answered"
(I assumed that since she said fundamental issues, that she was talking about filings and claims)
At this point I decided to tell her that I was connected with the National Coalition Against Naked Shorting.
She knew now that I was going to get into the subject of
Illegal Naked Shorting in general and giggled.
She said, NCANS has raised some issues with this subject and there is definately alot of buzz around the office
and you can bet that the SEC is looking into alot of the issues that the group has raised and the SEC encourages people to speak out on legitimate issues on both sides of the issue concerning naked short selling.
(I found it quite interesting that she referred to the National Coalition Against Naked Shorting as 'NCANS')
I kept hitting her with questions concerning Illegal Naked Short Selling and she kept coming back to me with how much the SEC was behind the investors and wants to stop the abuses in the market. She said she was very happy that people were getting involved and she wishes more people would write and call their congress to get them involved and knew there was a growing base of concerned people.
I said you better believe we are growing and we are not going to stop until we win, and REG SHO was a joke!
She said they were seriously looking at REG SHO and how they could change it because there is a growing concern with the public as the public is starting to understand and educate themselves on the abuses.
I wanted to let her know that I was a balanced individual and explained that I understood and continue to understand that there are also Scam public companies that were also stealing money from the investors. She seemed to be very receptive and quite relaxed once she realized that I was not just seeing one side of the equation.
She said it takes open minded people from both sides of the issue to correct the past and current issues that plague the market. I definately agreed with her assessment and she agreed with mine as well.
The remaining time was spent conversing about how people needed get involved before changes were made and encouraged us (investors and the General public) to get the word out on the concerns we have with the illegal Naked Shorting issue.
We also talked about Social Security and how this issue will determine if privatizing is the way to go. We both agreed that this would be the opportune time for all of us to get involved so we would end up with the best plan.