Evidence that recent restrictions on naked short selling mattered? There is no way to know what would have happened without the restrictions. The protected companies may have dropped 80% for all we know.
Would options traders hedge major positions for free all the time in massive quantities if they could? Maybe only a few rogue traders are doing this and they know they need to tread lightly to avoid detection.
Would a clearing firm allow a position that could trigger a short squeeze? How is a short squeeze possible when the trader in question can flood the market with 100,000 or 1MM or 10MM or 100MM shares whenever he wants, irrespective of the availability (or non-availability) of a borrow or the float?
I can't say who is doing this because DTCC (owned by the prime brokers) won't release detailed data. But the mere existence of hundreds of companies on the Reg SHO Threshold Lists proves millions of shares have failed to deliver.
I've never believed in a conspiracy in my life, but I've spent a great deal of time on this and I am convinced. So are a lot of other people, apparently including Christopher Cox.
1. Small-cap, non-dividend-paying stocks are especially susceptible to naked short selling, 2. Even if a dividend is paid, a naked short seller can sell 100%, 1000% or more of the float with no intent to deliver, resulting in... (drum roll) a lower stock price. Manipulation 101. 3. Steady dividend payers can be prevented from raising capital if their stock is in free-fall from -- for instance -- naked short sellers manufacturing artificial shares to their hearts' content.
Remember, the Reg SHO Threshold Lists document excessive failures to deliver (0.5%, 50%, 100% or more). This is not an exercise in imagination.
You sir are missing the point.
If 100MM shares are outstanding, a hedge fund can buy puts on 20MM, 50MM or 100MM shares and "encourage" the option market maker to hedge the position by selling short the same number of shares, without borrowing, and with no intent to deliver. With no SEC enforcement, the market maker has no worries. He can remain naked as long as he wants.
1. What would happen to the stock price?
2. If this can be done, why would it not be done?
As to evidence: The exchanges' Regulation SHO Threshold Lists, which document all issues with 0.5% to 100% or more of the float failing to deliver, sometimes for months on end. Don't trust me; Google Reg SHO Threshold List. There's one for each exchange with failure-to-deliver (FTD) counts.
No.
A put is an independent contract between the writer and the buyer whose value fluctuates with the price of underlying shares; not a claim on the shares themselves. On an issue with 100M shares outstanding, one could write puts on 1B shares if he could find a buyer.
In naked short selling, the buyer believes -- and is told by his broker -- that he has a claim on the shares he bought. However, because they are not delivered (because they were not borrowed), the buyer has nothing.
At a minimum buyers should be told when actual shares are not delivered. This is not done. SEC tells us which issues have 0.5% or 150% of their float undelivered, but no one knows which "share" holders actually have shares.
Crazy but true.
He wrote a book on the subject with that stance. Fine. But he would lose nothing by standing by idly while Byrne attacked naked short sellers. Instead, he joined the fight with deceptive methods and finally got caught. Why bother? To promote book sales? I doubt it. I am not assuming a conspiracy. I am accusing Gary Weiss of bad faith.
You are missing the point.
Byrnes is not talking about short sales, where the seller actually delivers the shares. He is talking about naked short sales, where the seller does not bother to borrow shares, thus he can sell as many shares as he wants into the market, up to and beyond the entire float.
All the profit in the world would make no difference in this case. The stock will go down.
Seems reasonable. But ask yourself: Why would a respected journalist risk his reputation by manipulating multiple identities on Wikipedia to downplay what is clearly a fraudulent practice? Why take that risk? Is it possible he was somehow encouraged to do so by someone with a vested interest in the status quo?
I got banned too, by georgewilliamherbert who claimed I was a sockpuppet. I'm not. But I did take on Mantanmoreland for a few weeks. When he hurled up the GW defense of NSS as an obstacle to pump and dump, I told him GW was in my opinion "an imbecile, a crook or both." I am quite pleased to find I said that to his face. hahahahahahahaaaaa
Slashdot Mirror
You're stupid.
You can attack the messenger if you like.
Congratulations on reading the mind of the Chairman of the SEC.
Which Commissioner do you think convinced him to take action on this non-issue? Whose data do you think they were using? Is your data better?
Good luck.
Evidence that recent restrictions on naked short selling mattered? There is no way to know what would have happened without the restrictions. The protected companies may have dropped 80% for all we know.
Would options traders hedge major positions for free all the time in massive quantities if they could? Maybe only a few rogue traders are doing this and they know they need to tread lightly to avoid detection.
Would a clearing firm allow a position that could trigger a short squeeze? How is a short squeeze possible when the trader in question can flood the market with 100,000 or 1MM or 10MM or 100MM shares whenever he wants, irrespective of the availability (or non-availability) of a borrow or the float?
I can't say who is doing this because DTCC (owned by the prime brokers) won't release detailed data. But the mere existence of hundreds of companies on the Reg SHO Threshold Lists proves millions of shares have failed to deliver.
I've never believed in a conspiracy in my life, but I've spent a great deal of time on this and I am convinced. So are a lot of other people, apparently including Christopher Cox.
1. Small-cap, non-dividend-paying stocks are especially susceptible to naked short selling, 2. Even if a dividend is paid, a naked short seller can sell 100%, 1000% or more of the float with no intent to deliver, resulting in... (drum roll) a lower stock price. Manipulation 101. 3. Steady dividend payers can be prevented from raising capital if their stock is in free-fall from -- for instance -- naked short sellers manufacturing artificial shares to their hearts' content. Remember, the Reg SHO Threshold Lists document excessive failures to deliver (0.5%, 50%, 100% or more). This is not an exercise in imagination.
You sir are missing the point. If 100MM shares are outstanding, a hedge fund can buy puts on 20MM, 50MM or 100MM shares and "encourage" the option market maker to hedge the position by selling short the same number of shares, without borrowing, and with no intent to deliver. With no SEC enforcement, the market maker has no worries. He can remain naked as long as he wants. 1. What would happen to the stock price? 2. If this can be done, why would it not be done? As to evidence: The exchanges' Regulation SHO Threshold Lists, which document all issues with 0.5% to 100% or more of the float failing to deliver, sometimes for months on end. Don't trust me; Google Reg SHO Threshold List. There's one for each exchange with failure-to-deliver (FTD) counts.
No. A put is an independent contract between the writer and the buyer whose value fluctuates with the price of underlying shares; not a claim on the shares themselves. On an issue with 100M shares outstanding, one could write puts on 1B shares if he could find a buyer. In naked short selling, the buyer believes -- and is told by his broker -- that he has a claim on the shares he bought. However, because they are not delivered (because they were not borrowed), the buyer has nothing. At a minimum buyers should be told when actual shares are not delivered. This is not done. SEC tells us which issues have 0.5% or 150% of their float undelivered, but no one knows which "share" holders actually have shares. Crazy but true.
He wrote a book on the subject with that stance. Fine. But he would lose nothing by standing by idly while Byrne attacked naked short sellers. Instead, he joined the fight with deceptive methods and finally got caught. Why bother? To promote book sales? I doubt it. I am not assuming a conspiracy. I am accusing Gary Weiss of bad faith.
You are missing the point. Byrnes is not talking about short sales, where the seller actually delivers the shares. He is talking about naked short sales, where the seller does not bother to borrow shares, thus he can sell as many shares as he wants into the market, up to and beyond the entire float. All the profit in the world would make no difference in this case. The stock will go down.
Seems reasonable. But ask yourself: Why would a respected journalist risk his reputation by manipulating multiple identities on Wikipedia to downplay what is clearly a fraudulent practice? Why take that risk? Is it possible he was somehow encouraged to do so by someone with a vested interest in the status quo?
I got banned too, by georgewilliamherbert who claimed I was a sockpuppet. I'm not. But I did take on Mantanmoreland for a few weeks. When he hurled up the GW defense of NSS as an obstacle to pump and dump, I told him GW was in my opinion "an imbecile, a crook or both." I am quite pleased to find I said that to his face. hahahahahahahaaaaa