http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aEOpTqmLZB7A
Yes of course its true. And it did happen to Overstock.
Yes of course its true. And it did happen to Overstock.
Byrne Takes Full Page WSJ Ad, Taunts Stevie
- Thread starter flytiger
- Start date
I think we need to clearly differentiate between the rules and regulations and what happens in the market place. The rules clearly state that the counter parties of failed trades have 13 days to resolve the issue. That the rules are not enforced is the real problem not that they do not exist. Now, you cannot blame the short sellers or naked short seller by using loop holes to circumvent or soften certain regulations. Your article conveniently omits any explanation how this regulation is circumvented. Unless one has such information I find it hypocritical that you approve of your own tax minimization efforts to use loop holes in the system and to use loop holes to optimize your own quality of life at the expense of others. We all do. The real problem lies with those who do not enforce the rules because they may be compensated to look away.
So, if someone fails on the trade for 12 days and settles the issue to fail right after again by selling shares that do not exist, well, there is harm done but such person does not act illegally. So, in that the Overstock CEO has not demonstrated at all where anyone in the market place acted illegally. He claims they do but he fails to deliver any sort of proof. He could as well argue that normal short selling is harmful and thus must be stopped. Just because something harms us or others does not make it illegal (for decades smoking at the office and inside public buildings was legal but harmed others, and nobody sued the smokers. It is a regulatory issue and enforcement issue not the problem of the smoker. And even if someone smoked inside a night club in NYC today at most the club could be fined but surely not the smoker).
The issue has to be tackled at the source which is the DTCC and NOT on the hedge fund or other users' side.
So, if someone fails on the trade for 12 days and settles the issue to fail right after again by selling shares that do not exist, well, there is harm done but such person does not act illegally. So, in that the Overstock CEO has not demonstrated at all where anyone in the market place acted illegally. He claims they do but he fails to deliver any sort of proof. He could as well argue that normal short selling is harmful and thus must be stopped. Just because something harms us or others does not make it illegal (for decades smoking at the office and inside public buildings was legal but harmed others, and nobody sued the smokers. It is a regulatory issue and enforcement issue not the problem of the smoker. And even if someone smoked inside a night club in NYC today at most the club could be fined but surely not the smoker).
The issue has to be tackled at the source which is the DTCC and NOT on the hedge fund or other users' side.
Yes he has. Not to say his company or leadership were good.
could you please point me to that fact. Where has he shown with evidence that a naked short seller did not resolve the issue within 13 days? He has to show that the broken trade was not resolved within that period.
Just him claiming that is the case means nothing. Look, if he had evidence it would take a court days to resolve the issue and potentially force DTCC or SEC to tighten enforcement. He has been lambasting for years without really much of a result. Shows me that his evidence is extremely thin, to word it positively.
Just him claiming that is the case means nothing. Look, if he had evidence it would take a court days to resolve the issue and potentially force DTCC or SEC to tighten enforcement. He has been lambasting for years without really much of a result. Shows me that his evidence is extremely thin, to word it positively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overstock.com
They did sue, and they won $ 5 million. You don't pay $ 5 million if you are innocent, but feel free to continue to live in your bubble where you are right but don't want to do any research.
"On Dec. 8, 2009, it was announced that Copper River had reached an out of court settlement with Overstock. As part of the agreement, Copper River, which closed in December 2008, agreed to pay Overstock $5 million."
They did sue, and they won $ 5 million. You don't pay $ 5 million if you are innocent, but feel free to continue to live in your bubble where you are right but don't want to do any research.
"On Dec. 8, 2009, it was announced that Copper River had reached an out of court settlement with Overstock. As part of the agreement, Copper River, which closed in December 2008, agreed to pay Overstock $5 million."
Overstock also made a pretty good recovery after all the lawsuits.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=OSTK+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=5y
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?s=OSTK+Basic+Tech.+Analysis&t=5y
come on, you and I and everyone knows 5mil is a joke. Its the "please bow out and butt off" type of settlement.
You still fail to provide any substantiated proof that failed trades extended beyond 13 days.
You still fail to provide any substantiated proof that failed trades extended beyond 13 days.
and a stock quote. Wow, that is what I call deep research. Sorry but if that is the quality of backup of naked short sell opponents then I am not surprised this has never gained traction.
I rest my case, I asked for any hint of proof where naked short sellers in the past have clearly not resolved broken trades within the mandated period. Claiming "those broken trades have remained unresolved for years" is the same quality of "proof" than saying "the drug traffic has been going on for years in the billions of dollars and thus we must convict xyz". No vice, no DA, no AG has ever gained a solid conviction off the back of such argumentation.
I rest my case, I asked for any hint of proof where naked short sellers in the past have clearly not resolved broken trades within the mandated period. Claiming "those broken trades have remained unresolved for years" is the same quality of "proof" than saying "the drug traffic has been going on for years in the billions of dollars and thus we must convict xyz". No vice, no DA, no AG has ever gained a solid conviction off the back of such argumentation.
Byrne is in the position that, when he wins he loses. Many things I cannot tell you. But I"ll tell you this.
First, he got what he could from the two lawsuits. The idiots in Texas were as lame as can be, and begged him to let up. me and a friend have encouraged PB all along to drive a stake in their hearts (if you can find one) and twist it. Killing them is the only way to end this. He got what was there to drive the case to California. I just posted a piece where GS lawyer stepped all over himself. You can argue it. This is what happened. The baddies paid the other guy's legal fees.
Second. A large well - known hedgie was forced into liquidation. Their attorneys called a friend of mine wanting to buy certs of a stock that hasn't traded in 8 years. Now, some of you are ethically, morally, cognitively challenged, but can anyone guess what that was about? And if I gave you the name, everyone of you would know the name and the story.
Third, what of the rebates. Someone explained it this way. You call, say GS, for a locate. It's a tough one, Overstock for example. McLean is going to come with a bash piece. you need some o' dat. So, he stands up, turns around sits down and says, "Yeah, you're good". And another guy calls, and he says the same thing, and lends out the same 100,000 five, six, seven times. Now, who's rebate was that that he stole. Yes, it's stealing. It belongs to State St or someone else. The lawyer leaks tell you such.
Now, insider trading vs. Naked shorts. You get them on where you can get them. You get SAC on insider trading because Preet things he can get them on that. The other stuff comes in discovery.
Lastly, the "roll Stevie"? Watch the rest of the street throw him under the bus to keep the sharks away, just like in WWII. Sink a ship, the survivors would push the guys who wouldn't make it away to draw the sharks. You'll see it all play out now. And I don't know why. With all this known, 40%, year after year....... Why now? Best answer I got was "Preet is going to make a name for himself." Worked for Rudy, didn't it?
First, he got what he could from the two lawsuits. The idiots in Texas were as lame as can be, and begged him to let up. me and a friend have encouraged PB all along to drive a stake in their hearts (if you can find one) and twist it. Killing them is the only way to end this. He got what was there to drive the case to California. I just posted a piece where GS lawyer stepped all over himself. You can argue it. This is what happened. The baddies paid the other guy's legal fees.
Second. A large well - known hedgie was forced into liquidation. Their attorneys called a friend of mine wanting to buy certs of a stock that hasn't traded in 8 years. Now, some of you are ethically, morally, cognitively challenged, but can anyone guess what that was about? And if I gave you the name, everyone of you would know the name and the story.
Third, what of the rebates. Someone explained it this way. You call, say GS, for a locate. It's a tough one, Overstock for example. McLean is going to come with a bash piece. you need some o' dat. So, he stands up, turns around sits down and says, "Yeah, you're good". And another guy calls, and he says the same thing, and lends out the same 100,000 five, six, seven times. Now, who's rebate was that that he stole. Yes, it's stealing. It belongs to State St or someone else. The lawyer leaks tell you such.
Now, insider trading vs. Naked shorts. You get them on where you can get them. You get SAC on insider trading because Preet things he can get them on that. The other stuff comes in discovery.
Lastly, the "roll Stevie"? Watch the rest of the street throw him under the bus to keep the sharks away, just like in WWII. Sink a ship, the survivors would push the guys who wouldn't make it away to draw the sharks. You'll see it all play out now. And I don't know why. With all this known, 40%, year after year....... Why now? Best answer I got was "Preet is going to make a name for himself." Worked for Rudy, didn't it?
sure, and of course none of the audits that those banks undergo each year has ever found any such funny rebate payments. You gotta be kidding me. This is the most theatrical stage acting I have ever seen. What a tool!!! Total comedy, hard to trump that. Seriously you are a total idiot if you do not mean all what you said as joke. On ignore.