OSTK ceo

Quote from Mvic:

Fly I appreciate all your postings but something just does not add up with the float & #'s Byrnes is putting out and the action in the stock (especially those days when he and his Dad bought some $20M of stock, who was selling? Naked shorts?)

I am long hundreds of Calls but the one thing that is worrying me is that naked short friendly MM's can naked short to hedge their positions if I am not mistaken. So, in order to provide liquidity in the options market they can sell very cheap OTM puts to the likes of Rocker et ak and then turn around and naked short OSTK legally. Is this right or not? If it is correct then it isn't too much of a stretch to see how they could get around the whole naked short being illegal problem.

The one thing that would have to happen though is that they would have to close out some of those naked shorts upon option expiration as they would lose their "hedge" cover. Perhaps this is the reason why the stock has not fallen on the news, options expiration friday so naked shorts had to be covered as they could no longer say they were hedged for the expired puts?

Of course, could also be that the stock is where it is and has been the last few weeks because the big money in the stock already knew what was going on (with the IT) and the IT stuff was already factored in by majority of investors in the float?

I know you say it isn't about fundies but if ostk produces decent earning with this recent upload of goods and have a good holiday season then it will bring more investor interest in to the float and if the stock rises even a little, the momo crowd. The naked short game has limits doesn't it? They can't hold it down by naked shorting unlimited number of shares or it will be too blatant. I mean it is already pretty blatant but they are getting away with it because there seems to be some room for plausible deniability still, if they have to short the stock to fend off interest from new buyers provoked by positive fundies then there has to be a limit where they have to stop or even the SEC will have to step in just to save face?
More...

i would be very careful making a big bet on some possible future short squeeze based on some theory by a bunch of conspiricy nuts. you have to assume that anybody still short this thing thinks they have the law on their side. who would take a chance with illegal activity now that all of this is in the news?
 
just the brokers, who are holding billions in short postions and the hedgies, who shorted them, and politicians, who, according to a regulator "take PAC money in the left hand and write laws in the right.

All you need do is to observe. It's there.

This is a trading site. What I'm pointing out is, this is a tremendous opportunity for traders. And the more guys that pour on when they ring the bell, the more the bastards suffer. And that will blow wind up my skirt.

Hey, maybe somebody on this board reads this, breaks the code, and contacts his source and that speeds the end.

Watch your level 2 on SDNA today. Watch SCHB play with the bid and offer and "box" the stock. They control it, and SDNA has SEC decisions in their favor. At the end of the month, my sources tell me the DTC postion does not change. Why not? Does the company not deserve to trade freely? Why doesn't somebody stop it.? I've got my theories.
 
What about this scenario: Byrne and insiders keep buying on open market and naked sellers keep selling to them. They keep buying until they have bought as much as they can without raising prices. Then when they own float + X naked sales they take the co private at whatever they want. Now because they already own float and all legitimate shares it doesn't cost them anything but they would also be holding millions of naked shares having taken the other side of the naked sales. Would they not then be able to sue the sellers of those shares for the difference between the price they paid (in the $40's) and the tender price, along with anyone else who took the other side of the naked shorts? If so it would seem that these funds doing the naked shorting, or the MM doing the naked shorting to hedge themselves are taking on a huge and unknown liability (because OSTK could choose whatever they wanted as the tender price to take the company private again).

Vhen it would seem that way but look at the way ostk has traded and the float and short numbers (regardless of what you think of the CEO's CC). Something is off and given that the Byrnes have put their money where their mouth is, have a good rep, and the way the stock has traded (especially in the face of news that would sink most other similar stocks 50%, amongst other factors, I think the risk reward is there for a good trade.
 
Quote from Mvic:

What about this scenario: Byrne and insiders keep buying on open market and naked sellers keep selling to them. They keep buying until they have bought as much as they can without raising prices. Then when they own float + X naked sales they take the co private at whatever they want. Now because they already own float and all legitimate shares it doesn't cost them anything but they would also be holding millions of naked shares having taken the other side of the naked sales. Would they not then be able to sue the sellers of those shares for the difference between the price they paid (in the $40's) and the tender price, along with anyone else who took the other side of the naked shorts? If so it would seem that these funds doing the naked shorting, or the MM doing the naked shorting to hedge themselves are taking on a huge and unknown liability (because OSTK could choose whatever they wanted as the tender price to take the company private again).

Vhen it would seem that way but look at the way ostk has traded and the float and short numbers (regardless of what you think of the CEO's CC). Something is off and given that the Byrnes have put their money where their mouth is, have a good rep, and the way the stock has traded (especially in the face of news that would sink most other similar stocks 50%, amongst other factors, I think the risk reward is there for a good trade.
More...

might work out who knows. you want a conspiricy theory how about this one. that idiot byrne has been so vocal about buying his stock that the big boys are holding it up at $40 so they can sell overpriced stock to byrne. why sell him $20 stock when he keeps buying $40 stock.
 
they aren't 'holding it up" They are trying to get it down and cover some. THey know the downside for them is huge. Not worth the risk here. The constant bantering, harping on the same themes is the way the keep pressure up. They don't need buyers, they need to shake stock loose. But, they are so efficient, they cornered themselves.

They always pick stocks with achille's heel. MSO, KKD, etc. But they don't want to wait like real investors. So they enlist reporters, lawyers, and brokers to aid them. That's the illegal part that we are trying to solve. No question the companies are flawed, but man ipulation is illegal.
 
Quote from vhehn:

might work out who knows. you want a conspiracy theory how about this one. that idiot byrne has been so vocal about buying his stock that the big boys are holding it up at $40 so they can sell overpriced stock to byrne. why sell him $20 stock when he keeps buying $40 stock.
More...

Doesn't seem to fit the facts or the way it has been trading on Level 2 and I have been watching it for the last few weeks now) but I suppose its possible.

I look at who has the most power here and it is clearly the Byrnes, they have a huge stock position, have enough family funds to take it private fairly easily, control the float, and have inside knowledge of company and can release info when they want. Basically it is their game to lose. They stand to gain far more than the naked shorts on this one too and money makes friends, the longer the naked shorting goes on at current prices there more people who will be able to make money so I think that the shorts are on the losing side here any way you look at it. The Brynes have the trump card that if push comes to shove will end the game. At some point either the system works or they lose their patience.

The shorts are relying on the company going down the tubes fast enough that they will shake some shares loose from the institutional holders. With the new IT upgrade, the new inventory, and the holiday season coming up metrics should improve at least temporarily and if you believe the fool's analysis long term. Either way i don't think the company, if it is going to blow up will blow up fast enough to save the shorts.

Bottom line is that you take away all the sith lord stuff, all the alleged collusion between parties, and what you are left with is a heavily shorted float that is overwhelmingly controlled by the CEO's family and numbers that don't add up. Conspiracy theories aside, I don't think that it takes a particularly investigative mind to see that there is something to this whole naked shorting business (regardless if the collusion and puppet master stuff turns out to be true or not) and OSTK is a prime example of it.

I may just be talking my trade but so far everyone is laughing at the CEO's rather eccentric way of going about telling the story of what he thinks is going on but no one is really rebutting his number and with his recent buys it is even clear that there is something to his underlying theory that his stock is being naked shorted which, to my mind, is a losing proposition with the factors stacked against the short that I outlined above. Infact I am more and more convinced that this is the case that I intend to increase my position.
 
I hope you score big. But keep some dry powder. You can see how fast Herb was to pay back favors. They will attack with everything they have as soon as they get an opening.

You do have to be impressed how little it went down Monday, and how it's come back. That will not set well with the shorts. Remember, the scum that allowed them Naked Shorts still get paid, and still watch the store. They won't let this go forever, and the shorts know it. Look for more negative crap, and buy the dips IMO.

Remember, this has such visablility, that the SRO's watch too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top