Absolutely the market should determine its value, Skippy.
But the "market" is not confined to mouth-breathing, gullible bagholders, though I'm sure you wish it were. It includes short sellers, "naked" and "borrowed". And the attempts by crooked promoters and inept managers to restrict short selling of any kind merely leads to markets with artificially over-priced securities... a condition that can only be detrimental to the interests of investors.
As for Wikipedia's refusal to let crooked promoters and inept managers junk up their site with misinformation and lies regarding naked short selling and its effects, that's a decision they're certainly entitled to make.
As it turns out, it's the correct one.
Oh. And the AMEX?
They're another SRO. I am not affiliated with the AMEX and I don't do my naked shorting through any of their member firms. Therefore their regs do not apply to me.
It'd be kind of like someone saying that criticizing NBA refs is illegal and then pasting an article about all of the fines Mark Cuban has had to pay as proof. Yes, Cuban's role subjects him to fines if he criticizes NBA referees. No, criticizing NBA referees is not illegal.
Slashdot probably isn't a good fit for you. Your penny- stock grifter tactics seem to have a much more receptive audience over at Investor Jonestown.
I still see no citation of any portion of the U.S.C. that prohibits naked short selling.
(Probably because there is none.)
But be that as it may, let's take a look at some cold, hard data from a company supposedly harmed by "naked short selling".
Now if, as people like you say, there was really this damage taking place, then this company's shares would be artificially depressed by the detrimental effects of "naked short selling", right?
So I've got six quarterlies on this company in front of me. The first thing I notice is their dwindling revenues. They used to have trailing 12-month revenues in excess of $800 million. At their current rate of decline, they'll finish the year around $710 million. Maybe, if they could stop their bleeding right now, they wind up the year at $750 million... if they're lucky.
Obviously, this is not a growth company even though it was touted as such last year.
I look closer at these quarterlies and see that this company has endured over $100 million in losses over the past year as this contraction in revenues was taking place. In the past six months alone, their tangible common equity has been halved and now stands at $29 million. At their current pace of losses, that tangible common equity will be extinguished by the end of the year.
There have been a few minor improvements. At first glance, their overhead seems to be improved. But then you look closer and you see that the improvement in overhead was the result of their cutting their advertising by a third.
Still, you can't rule out a possible turn-around. Maybe they stop the bleeding for this year and next and manage to start growing again. They're in a super-competitive environment where margins are thin, but it's still a remote possibility.
Then I looked a little closer and I saw that their bone-headed management went and wasted over $60 million accumulating treasury stock while the ccompany was still cash-flow negative.
Ouch.
What would you pay for this company?
It means to me that Cox, who is first and foremost a politician and not a finance person, isn't completely aware of the applicability of the rules and regs of his own organization. (Not exactly a first.)
We find that from time to time in the securities industry. Ever hear of Ralph Lambiase?
The guy's the director of the division of securities of Connecticut... and he can't find his a$$ with both hands. Made a huge fuss over "naked short selling" though. Got his head handed to him when he invested in a couple of pump'n'dump ventures. (Neither of them, to my knowledge, happened to be Overstock.com.) Get this, the goofball actually said, at a round-table, that his getting hammered by those pump'n'dump scams was why he was a regulator instead of an investor.
Well, that's Connecticut for you. But seriously, as for Cox? You can get a politician to say anything. Look no further than your Senator Bennett, the clown who made a fuss over Global Links (blatant scam). Just because some dweeb says something stupid doesn't mean it's true.
Because IF it were true that naked short selling was illegal, YOU would be able to cite that portion of the U.S.C. that says so.
But there is no such code... because it's not illegal.
So... ready for a stroll through Overstock.com's last 10-Q, Skippy?
Where did you ever get the idea that naked short selling is illegal?
There are no laws against naked short selling. It is a procedural violation if performed within the confines of an institution subject to the rules and regs of most of this country's SRO's, but when performed away from SRO member firms, there are no prohibitions.
As for where the actual harm takes place with these companies that pummel their shareholders into the ground, it's not merely my saying so. The filings themselves tell the whole story. Care to take a stroll through some financials?
I'll even let you choose the company. Who's made the most noise about "naked short selling"? Jag Media? Sedona? Novastar? Viragen?
Overstock.com?
You name me a company where managers or promoters have tried to divert attention away from fundamentals with the "naked short seller" excuse and I'll show you a company that's been clobbered by her own management.
At its very core, the financial media's job is to question valuations. When the media first began looking at Overstock.com, there was no personal vendetta. There were simply asking the question, "Does this company's performance merit it's current market cap?"
For as long as I can remember, the answer to that question has always been "no".
I know that's not an answer you like to hear, but even the most primitive of analysts recognized Overstock.com as a capital sink.
Now to your credit, the focus on your fulfillment segment is the right place to be. (Took ya long enough to figure that out.) And your efforts to cut overhead have not gone unnoticed by me.
Even with these token improvements, no reasonable person with any kind of a financial background would look at your outfit and say, with a straight face, "It's worth over 400 million."
If your stock is still over-valued, and it is, then neither Overstock.com nor her investors have been harmed by "naked short sellers".
I have never said that "naked short selling" doesn't occur. I know it occurs as I'm a naked short seller myself.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that "naked short selling", despite the claims made by crooked promoters and inept managements, does not harm corporations or investors. It is the lie that "naked short selling" has harmed anyone that draws me into this conversation.
What I have also said is that the "naked short seller" excuse has repeatedly been used as a diversion by crooked promoters and inept management to get gullible, naive investors to buy and hold their over-hyped shares.
It is here where the data completely backs that assertion. If you take the time to locate and read the 10-K's and the 10-Q's filed by these so-called "victims", you find the same thing over and over: companies whose managements have thrown their shareholders into a meat-grinder.
This is not just some "party line". This is basic, fundamental financial analysis that, sadly, too many investors ignore. Because if they'd take the time to do even a cursory review of these "victims", they'd recognize what a farce your sham movement is.
Don't take my word for it. Do some digging on your own.
Find a company where management or promoters have been vocal about "naked short selling". Overstock.com, for that matter, isn't a bad place to start. Go to the EDGAR site and download their 10-K's and 10-Q's.
Then read them.
Without exception you will find company after company that has been pounded into the ground by inept or crooked managements.
But never will you find a company that's been harmed by "naked short selling". Because that claim is, and always has been, nothing more than a ruse.
You mean, like, the way we fabricated that $100 million you blew awayast year?
Or the way we've fabricated your contracting revenues?
Or is it the way we fabricated the truth about your working capital situation back in early 2006?
(Ooops... that was you who was much less than honest about your ongoing need for capital last year.)
Really, dude, who's the guilty party when it comes to relying on a Chewbacca Defense and telling Big Lies over and over again?
It shouldn't surprise you that most mainstream media outlets are ignoring the bogus "naked short selling" story.
The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that "naked short selling" complaints have never been anything more than a distraction used by crooked promoters and inept managers to dump over-hyped shares on gullible, naive investors.
Slashdot Mirror
Absolutely the market should determine its value, Skippy.
But the "market" is not confined to mouth-breathing, gullible bagholders, though I'm sure you wish it were. It includes short sellers, "naked" and "borrowed". And the attempts by crooked promoters and inept managers to restrict short selling of any kind merely leads to markets with artificially over-priced securities... a condition that can only be detrimental to the interests of investors.
As for Wikipedia's refusal to let crooked promoters and inept managers junk up their site with misinformation and lies regarding naked short selling and its effects, that's a decision they're certainly entitled to make.
As it turns out, it's the correct one.
Oh. And the AMEX?
They're another SRO. I am not affiliated with the AMEX and I don't do my naked shorting through any of their member firms. Therefore their regs do not apply to me.
It'd be kind of like someone saying that criticizing NBA refs is illegal and then pasting an article about all of the fines Mark Cuban has had to pay as proof. Yes, Cuban's role subjects him to fines if he criticizes NBA referees. No, criticizing NBA referees is not illegal.
Slashdot probably isn't a good fit for you. Your penny- stock grifter tactics seem to have a much more receptive audience over at Investor Jonestown.
I still see no citation of any portion of the U.S.C. that prohibits naked short selling.
(Probably because there is none.)
But be that as it may, let's take a look at some cold, hard data from a company supposedly harmed by "naked short selling".
Now if, as people like you say, there was really this damage taking place, then this company's shares would be artificially depressed by the detrimental effects of "naked short selling", right?
So I've got six quarterlies on this company in front of me. The first thing I notice is their dwindling revenues. They used to have trailing 12-month revenues in excess of $800 million. At their current rate of decline, they'll finish the year around $710 million. Maybe, if they could stop their bleeding right now, they wind up the year at $750 million... if they're lucky.
Obviously, this is not a growth company even though it was touted as such last year.
I look closer at these quarterlies and see that this company has endured over $100 million in losses over the past year as this contraction in revenues was taking place. In the past six months alone, their tangible common equity has been halved and now stands at $29 million. At their current pace of losses, that tangible common equity will be extinguished by the end of the year.
There have been a few minor improvements. At first glance, their overhead seems to be improved. But then you look closer and you see that the improvement in overhead was the result of their cutting their advertising by a third.
Still, you can't rule out a possible turn-around. Maybe they stop the bleeding for this year and next and manage to start growing again. They're in a super-competitive environment where margins are thin, but it's still a remote possibility.
Then I looked a little closer and I saw that their bone-headed management went and wasted over $60 million accumulating treasury stock while the ccompany was still cash-flow negative.
Ouch.
What would you pay for this company?
It means to me that Cox, who is first and foremost a politician and not a finance person, isn't completely aware of the applicability of the rules and regs of his own organization. (Not exactly a first.)
We find that from time to time in the securities industry. Ever hear of Ralph Lambiase?
The guy's the director of the division of securities of Connecticut... and he can't find his a$$ with both hands. Made a huge fuss over "naked short selling" though. Got his head handed to him when he invested in a couple of pump'n'dump ventures. (Neither of them, to my knowledge, happened to be Overstock.com.) Get this, the goofball actually said, at a round-table, that his getting hammered by those pump'n'dump scams was why he was a regulator instead of an investor.
Well, that's Connecticut for you. But seriously, as for Cox? You can get a politician to say anything. Look no further than your Senator Bennett, the clown who made a fuss over Global Links (blatant scam). Just because some dweeb says something stupid doesn't mean it's true.
Because IF it were true that naked short selling was illegal, YOU would be able to cite that portion of the U.S.C. that says so.
But there is no such code... because it's not illegal.
So... ready for a stroll through Overstock.com's last 10-Q, Skippy?
Where did you ever get the idea that naked short selling is illegal?
There are no laws against naked short selling. It is a procedural violation if performed within the confines of an institution subject to the rules and regs of most of this country's SRO's, but when performed away from SRO member firms, there are no prohibitions.
As for where the actual harm takes place with these companies that pummel their shareholders into the ground, it's not merely my saying so. The filings themselves tell the whole story. Care to take a stroll through some financials?
I'll even let you choose the company. Who's made the most noise about "naked short selling"? Jag Media? Sedona? Novastar? Viragen?
Overstock.com?
You name me a company where managers or promoters have tried to divert attention away from fundamentals with the "naked short seller" excuse and I'll show you a company that's been clobbered by her own management.
At its very core, the financial media's job is to question valuations. When the media first began looking at Overstock.com, there was no personal vendetta. There were simply asking the question, "Does this company's performance merit it's current market cap?"
For as long as I can remember, the answer to that question has always been "no".
I know that's not an answer you like to hear, but even the most primitive of analysts recognized Overstock.com as a capital sink.
Now to your credit, the focus on your fulfillment segment is the right place to be. (Took ya long enough to figure that out.) And your efforts to cut overhead have not gone unnoticed by me.
Even with these token improvements, no reasonable person with any kind of a financial background would look at your outfit and say, with a straight face, "It's worth over 400 million."
If your stock is still over-valued, and it is, then neither Overstock.com nor her investors have been harmed by "naked short sellers".
I have never said that "naked short selling" doesn't occur. I know it occurs as I'm a naked short seller myself. What I have said, repeatedly, is that "naked short selling", despite the claims made by crooked promoters and inept managements, does not harm corporations or investors. It is the lie that "naked short selling" has harmed anyone that draws me into this conversation. What I have also said is that the "naked short seller" excuse has repeatedly been used as a diversion by crooked promoters and inept management to get gullible, naive investors to buy and hold their over-hyped shares. It is here where the data completely backs that assertion. If you take the time to locate and read the 10-K's and the 10-Q's filed by these so-called "victims", you find the same thing over and over: companies whose managements have thrown their shareholders into a meat-grinder. This is not just some "party line". This is basic, fundamental financial analysis that, sadly, too many investors ignore. Because if they'd take the time to do even a cursory review of these "victims", they'd recognize what a farce your sham movement is.
Don't take my word for it. Do some digging on your own. Find a company where management or promoters have been vocal about "naked short selling". Overstock.com, for that matter, isn't a bad place to start. Go to the EDGAR site and download their 10-K's and 10-Q's. Then read them. Without exception you will find company after company that has been pounded into the ground by inept or crooked managements. But never will you find a company that's been harmed by "naked short selling". Because that claim is, and always has been, nothing more than a ruse.
You mean, like, the way we fabricated that $100 million you blew awayast year? Or the way we've fabricated your contracting revenues? Or is it the way we fabricated the truth about your working capital situation back in early 2006? (Ooops... that was you who was much less than honest about your ongoing need for capital last year.) Really, dude, who's the guilty party when it comes to relying on a Chewbacca Defense and telling Big Lies over and over again?
It shouldn't surprise you that most mainstream media outlets are ignoring the bogus "naked short selling" story. The data overwhelmingly demonstrate that "naked short selling" complaints have never been anything more than a distraction used by crooked promoters and inept managers to dump over-hyped shares on gullible, naive investors.