Post by jannikki on Mar 15, 2007 16:53:16 GMT -4
[glow=red,2,300]My email to Gary Matsumoto:[/glow]
[glow=red,2,300]His response:[/glow]
| Mr. Matsumoto, I want to thank you for showing integrity is not dead in the news media. Being honest in your report on "naked short selling", goes against the norm of what investors have become accustomed to from "business journalists". I realize your report focused primarily on "name brand" companies, but many other start-up companies have been obliterated by this manipulative tactic. Take a glance at this expanding list we have been compiling about these companies: cmkxunitedforum.proboards70.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1160694963 What I have learned over the past three years about this subject is mind boggling. It bothered me enough to fly to Washington, D.C. to speak with my Senator about my concerns. I understand that there are good and bad companies in the market. However, those companies, whether good or bad, deserve to succeed or fail based on their own merits, without the influences of manipulative tactics. Whenever a company is forced out of business, the open trades are never settled. The manipulators sold something that did not exist, and something they never intended to deliver. Where's the SEC? It is my opinion that they would rather sweep the dirt under the rug, other than properly clean up the mess. For years, the SEC ignored the complaints of investors/companies alleging naked short selling. Commissioner Nazareth has been quoted in the past to have said: "People alleging naked short selling are just frustrated investors who want their stocks to go up." While any investor in their right mind would love to see their investments succeed, we would settle for a level playing field. Take a look at former SEC Attorney Gary Aguirre's allegations about John Mack. He was not allowed to pursue an insider trading case against him, or even question him because of his political "juice". Also, many of the firms which are fined by the SEC neither admit or deny the allegations. They pay their fines (supposedly), and return to business as normal. Their behavior might have netted them a profit of several million dollars, however, their punishment is minimal, allowing them to keep their ill gotten gains, profitting by manipulating the system, allowing them the luxuries the average investor isn't allowed. The SEC has permitted crime to pay time and time again, at the expense of many investors and companies. Janie |
[glow=red,2,300]His response:[/glow]
| From: "GARY MATSUMOTO, BLOOMBERG/ NEWSROOM:" <gmatsumoto@bloomberg.net> Thank you for writing Janie ... and for watching our program. I'm aware that most of the companies affected by this type of trading are nano-cap and micro-cap start-ups. We focused on the companies with "brand name recognition,"in part, because we believed most people would be surprised by the fact that well-known companies would be vulnerable to any type of potential manipulation. We may do follow-ups, and if we do, I will try to address the damage done to start-ups, and how this activity discourages companies from going public. |
