The "intent" of the trading is well known and it always is to make profits. And congratulating the colleagues for doing "a great job" is not a crime. The stock collapsed as a result of the poor company underlying business not vice versa. The company would have collapsed even if it was private ( didn't have publicly traded stock ) though it might have taken longer time. The case is dismissed.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Uptick Rule - Your Thoughts
- Thread starter tomahawk
- Start date
Odd, since I called the US Attorney's office and after 5 and a half years it's still open with a new attorney. Sedona leads you to Baian, Rhino, Batlliner, Lichtenstein, Switzerland, UBS, and back again.Quote from gkishot:
This case will be dropped as well.
Seems to me, if the case is open that long, what I believe to be true has happened. Sedona (SDNA, OTCBB) led them to REFCO, and everytime they turn over a leaf, they find a bigger bug.
You think this is being dropped? I dont' think so. This is the Department of Justice, not a bunch of paid off hacks in a regulatory body.
You dont' see me on threads about futures. I don't talk about what I dont' know about. Try it. No time to shoot from the hip, or lip.
QUOTE]Quote from gkishot:
The "intent" of the trading is well known and it always is to make profits. And congratulating the colleagues for doing "a great job" is not a crime. The stock collapsed as a result of the poor company underlying business not vice versa. The company would have collapsed even if it was private though it might have taken longer time. The case is dismissed.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps one of the stupidest posts int he history of ET, and that's saying a lot, since the SEC brought two actions against the parties, won in civil court, and is going for a third. Add to that the fact the company has clean funding now, and is becoming the name in CRM software. But only because one individual stepped forward with his own money and saved it.
Add to the above Sedona was mentioned in the SEC IG report lambasting the SEC on naked shorting.
I suppose in your world, though, anything that makes a buck for you is ok. That "rules" are for suckers. Until, of course, the entire Country bleeds like a stuck pig, and the suckers have to fix it.
You suck as a human being.
For those of you who are walking upright, go to page 16:
http://www.sec-oig.gov/Reports/AuditsInspections/2009/450.pdf
Only one Company of thousands, and only because Sedona had a board member who had been an SEC commissioner.
Quote from gkishot:
The "intent" of the trading is well known and it always is to make profits. And congratulating the colleagues for doing "a great job" is not a crime. The stock collapsed as a result of the poor company underlying business not vice versa. The company would have collapsed even if it was private though it might have taken longer time. The case is dismissed.
Man are you an idiot. You just excused manipulation. "Intent" to manipulate prices through trade activities is not legal the same way "intent" to manipulate prices via false advertising is not legal.
The company lost orders due to the manipulation as forward looking concerns were raised with a declining stock value. Who wants to invest in software if the company is not around to support it?
Quote from patchie:
Man are you an idiot. You just excused manipulation. "Intent" to manipulate prices through trade activities is not legal the same way "intent" to manipulate prices via false advertising is not legal.
The company lost orders due to the manipulation as forward looking concerns were raised with a declining stock value. Who wants to invest in software if the company is not around to support it?
If company's plunging stock price can ruin the company's business it should not go public in the first place ( or pay it's shareholders dividends to show that it's alright ). If somebody's bet that the company's business will contract can consequently bring this company down then the company deserves to be out of business. And yes I excused what you called manipulation because where you see abusive price manipulation I see abusive accounting.
Quote from patchie:
Man are you an idiot. You just excused manipulation. "Intent" to manipulate prices through trade activities is not legal the same way "intent" to manipulate prices via false advertising is not legal.
The company lost orders due to the manipulation as forward looking concerns were raised with a declining stock value. Who wants to invest in software if the company is not around to support it?
You forgot the fact that "investors" like the Badians sign non - disclosures and agree not to short the stock, and do both anyway. Insider trading, breach of contract, market manipulation, fraud?????? And this happened thousands of times.
When the DOJ moves on Sedona, when they get what they are looking for and file the indictments, it'll be a who's who of "financiers" and I use that term in the loosest sense, and money launderers. I would guess this is going to tie into the UBS/G20 "you ain't stealin' our tax revenues no mo'" actions. Because white collar criminals hate paying taxes for money they worked so hard to steal. Why, that just ain't right!!
And those of you that really trade. The shitstorm these guys are about to bring down on the real traders here should make you mad enough to spit. I believe the industry is in real jeopardy. All so Chanos can live like a pimp. Great. Just friggin' great.
BTW, I was right about Dodd. It took a while. But even his home state hates him.
What is it with u and empirical research? Are you an uptick removal lobbyist? You have a empirical research fetish or something? Even what little research there is on the subject could still be flawed in its analysis, so just because some guys research shows one thing doesn't mean that's the definitive answer to the argument. You know what they say about stats...you can always make them work for your argument. Whether it makes a difference or not, removing the uptick rule when they did; even if just for perception reasons was not smart. I don't even care so much about this rule, but about the people who are supposed to be the watchdogs of the system who clearly failed miserably in policing the heavy players who always find a way around the rules, uptick rule or not. While were on this topic, what do you think about Cramer's ongoing rant about using etfs to move markets argument? Or do you need empirical evidence to even discuss it?Quote from Angrycat:
Patchie,
Not only are you an idiot, but you're also an unbelievably rude idiot.
Since that's the only thing you understand...listen closely, Moron:
YOU are the fuckwad who accused the SEC of neglecting to do enough rigorous empirical research to remove the rule. You can't produce a single straight answer to a single question I asked you but you proceed to spout idiocy about bear raids in financials and blaming the lack of price test for the market volatility. Could it be that banks made too many bad loans? NO! It's the lack of uptick! You're just a talentless meathead whose "strategy" consists of only going long.
Incidentally, I'm not afraid of the return of the uptick rule or some similar garbage. I'm exempt. I'm against it because it creates unfair disadvantages for retail traders and does nothing to promote free and fair markets or keep the U.S. exchanges competitive with other world exchanges.
But if you insist, I'm sure all the specialists and market makers will dutifully rape your retail order when the new rule is in place. It's really more money in their pockets at your expense.
Quote from patchie:
Man are you an idiot. You just excused manipulation. "Intent" to manipulate prices through trade activities is not legal the same way "intent" to manipulate prices via false advertising is not legal.
The company lost orders due to the manipulation as forward looking concerns were raised with a declining stock value. Who wants to invest in software if the company is not around to support it?
Just like who wants to invest in a new car if the company isn't around to service it or fullfill the warranty. These things become self fullfilling prophecies.
Quote from canuckrookie:
Just like who wants to invest in a new car if the company isn't around to service it or fullfill the warranty. These things become self fullfilling prophecies.
GM has been around for decades, the companies that the naked short/abbusive short guys use for example are usually not viable businesses in the first place, have yet to turn a profit and are trading on false expectations of the public. I have yet to see a concrete example on a company that was taken down by shorts and not its own massive financial problems.
Quote from AAA30:
GM has been around for decades, the companies that the naked short/abbusive short guys use for example are usually not viable businesses in the first place, have yet to turn a profit and are trading on false expectations of the public. I have yet to see a concrete example on a company that was taken down by shorts and not its own massive financial problems.
GM has been an unviable business for decades and the past has finally caught up with it and the others. Off the top of my head, BS comes to mind as rumours spread-and shorts piled on that helped lead to its demise, hence my comment of self fullfilling prophecies. Whether the work of short manipulators or the companies own bad management, false expecations, etc, etc...it all comes full circle.
Even a good company that has a proven track record can become victim to the markets. Company A gets line of credit cut by bank due to deleveraging balance sheet etc etc, shorts start to pile on knowing this, then stock starts to tank as traders flip it and any longs get crushed or move out of the way. More shorts pile on, companies financial ratios go out of wack due to rampant fall in sp, debt-equity ratios, ability to maintain earnings with no or reduced line of credit. End of the day the company is destroyed or severly weakened, and none of it was their fault.
The company had good management and otherwise produced real products and earned stable revenue. It was exterior factors that took the company down, all of which were completely out of their control. So by this logic the car companies are not able to earn money without major help from the banks or government. Should shorts be piling on because GM is an unviable business with false expectations and bad managment over the years?
Quote from canuckrookie:
GM has been an unviable business for decades and the past has finally caught up with it and the others. Off the top of my head, BS comes to mind as rumours spread-and shorts piled on that helped lead to its demise, hence my comment of self fullfilling prophecies. Whether the work of short manipulators or the companies own bad management, false expecations, etc, etc...it all comes full circle. Even a good company that has a proven track record can become victim to the markets. Company A gets line of credit cut by bank due to deleveraging balance sheet etc etc, shorts start to pile on knowing this, then stock starts to tank as traders flip it and any longs get crushed or move out of the way. More shorts pile on, companies financial ratios go out of wack due to rampant fall in sp, debt-equity ratios, ability to maintain earnings with no or reduced line of credit. End of the day the company is destroyed or severly weakened, and none of it was their fault. The company had good management and otherwise produced real products and earned stable revenue. It was exterior factors that took the company down, all of which were completely out of their control.
Sounds like it was overleveraged but you still can not say that short sellers led to its ultimate fate. Have any real examples?