Vanity Fair on BSC Collapse........

Quote from The Kin:

I'm a strong supporter of naked shorting and believe in less regulated capital markets. So what happened in BSC is perfectly a legit game of the market. For example, what happened at BSC would not likley happen at GS.
More...

i do not think that naked shorting was necessarily a major factor here. there are more serious issue - like incompetence of BSC management and spreading false rumors by 'somebody'.

naked shorting is the third biggest rip off after central banks' monopoly to print money and taxes. you should not be able to sell what you do not have in the same way as you should not be able to buy something for which you do not have money (your own or lent).
How would you like if you bought an iPod from Apple and Apple then tells you that they will not send you your item and will use money received from you to make your employer to fire you :)?

Anyways, especially small caps sometimes need to raise money at a reasonable price level - they should not depend on some hedge fund manager with 100x more assets who decides to waste them. of course, in a perfect world it could not happen as everybody would have all info with infinite amount of money and would offset the selling preassure. but in reality it is difficult to get even a private placement at a price much different from market price (usually +/-25%).

I am looking forward to your justification for support of the naked selling....
 
Quote from jem:
.

When CEO's blame the shorts - that is the first sign of an incompetent CEO. [/B]
More...

Another falsehood. Yes, from time to time, legally reporting companies with bad management have been illegally subjected to naked shorting. then, people say, 'well , you're a shitty company. You deserve it." But, many good companies have been destroyed. In both cases, it's illegal, and the regs are allowing it: You decide why. I know.

Naked shorting is illegal in all but small amount of siturations. Coupled with bear raids, no company is immune.

The DOJ has a list of companies Elgindy shorted, illegally, around the 1999, 2000 timeframe. I've seen it, although I don't have a copy. Some were the biggest of the big. they don't care. They'll do anyone for a buck.

And btw, this "Kin" idiot has no idea what he's talking about. He carries himself like a high school sophomore trying to fit in with the Seniors. Say anything, even if it so outrageous as to make yourself look stupid. Have you ever seen anything he has posted that was substantiated?

We have presented two stories by two different authors pointing out that Bear was raided. Adding to that, we show SEC data that shows a raid using naked shorting shares that fit the time frame perfectly. And some people can't fathom that. When the Feds move, we'll see. Won't we?

And some people can't figure that if they had their lifeblood in a company, and it was nefariously destroyed, that that would be disasterous. Perhaps because they can't fathom having the talent to start a company. You think?
 
I guess what you are not seeing is that the price of stock is independent of the viability or the quality of the business.

Shorts sellers should not drive a viable business out of business.

For instance if the Green Bay Packers stock actually represented ownership and became exchange traded - would it matter if your hedge fund sold naked shorts and drove the price to one cent. Would that drive it out of business? hell no.

Sure, maybe Bret Favre would not want stock options to come back. And perhaps the packers could not by the Brewers with a stock offer. But would the Packers need a fed bailout because its shares went to one cent? No. In fact I would try to buy all the shares at one cent a piece and become a shareholder. I would then ask the board to call in the current shares and issue new shares.


Regarding Bear - the stock price did not matter. The naked shorts should have been irrelevant unless they had created suicide loan deals.

What matters is that others lost faith in them as a counter party and they did not have the assets or the evidence to show they were a viable business.

it has been said Morgan bought them to get access to cash to shore up Morgan's business.
 
Quote from jem:


What matters is that others lost faith in them as a counter party and they did not have the assets or the evidence to show they were a viable business.
More...

No. What matters is, nefarious players got short, illegally to a certain degree, and then used their immense influence and power to create the illusion Bear wasn't a going concern. Read!

All you have to do is look at the fails data. That is the last resort. Why overpay for options and borrows? They'll even mark stock 'long' and not deliver. But the extra selling destroys the stock.
 
The illusion if the viable entity can prove it is viable.

Your belief completely dismisses the trillions of dollars looking to buy distressed but viable businesses.

Buffet stepped in to buy solomon. it is not hard to find buyers of underpriced securities.

If bear had billions - it would have put the money up and stayed in business.

Finally - I ask you this would the ceo of exxon mobil care about naked short sellers...

No - would gm.. Maybe - are they a viable business? I do not know but if they have a book value or a break up value someone like kerkorian steps in an screws the shorts.
 
You're totally simplistic. Start thinking like the guys playing you for a sucker, rather than the sucker.

The Tuesday following the BSC collapse, I was told that on the 13th, the Congress met in a secret meeting that discussed martial law, and how to protect the the persons in Government from, basically, you and me. Sounds farfetched, doesn't it? It did then, but I believed it. But This is America. that can't happen here. And I'm the last guy that plays conspiracy theories. Except the source was impeccable. I shared it with very, very few people. One was a US Fed Marshall. No reaction. Now, look here. There is no question the meetings took place. Found that out today. I told you what I was told, and I don't know about the link. I do believe what I was told. Argue about the content all you wish. But, there is no question we are in deep trouble.

March 13, 2008 Congressional Meeting - in secret for only the 4th time in over 150 years. Here is the link to the transcript for the meeting to be set up and Dennis Kucinich objecting. BTW. Can anyone did up the timing of the other three? Would be interesting.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2008/secret.html

The meeting was held anyway, even though some congressmen refused to participate (notable: presidential candidates Ron Paul and Dennis KucinchSome congressmen who did attend were so enraged by the content of the meeting, that they have leaked the information out anyway. Allegedly, this link describes the subject content of the meeting.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/42730

key issues:

1. the imminent collapse of the U.S. economy to occur by September 2008;
2. the imminent collapse of US federal government finances by February 2009;
3. the possibility of Civil War inside the USA as a result of the collapse (remember, the legislatures of 12 states have already stated to the federal government that they will not join the North American Union);
4. advance round-ups of "insurgent U.S. citizens" likely to move against the government;
5. The detention of those rounded-up at "REX 84" camps constructed throughout the USA (800 camps in the US);
6. the possibility of retaliation against members of Congress for the collapses;
7. the location of "safe facilities" for members of Congress and their families to reside during expected massive civil unrest;
8. the necessary and unavoidable merger of the United States with Canada (for its natural resources) and with Mexico (for its cheap labor pool);
9. the issuance of a new currency - THE AMERO - for all three nations as the proposed solution to the coming economic armageddon;
10. Members of Congress were FORBIDDEN to reveal what was discussed. Several are so furious and concerned about the future of the country, they have begun leaking info. More details coming.

What are they saying next?

Money laundering. There have again been secretive meetings of the Western nations, addressing this problem. I think things are so out of hand, even the Governments, paid off for so long, are taking it serious, because they believe the people will not tolerate anymore. Basically, our system can't tolerate anymore.

Bear Stearns was raided and destroyed by hedgefund cartels. Argue all you want. It happened. That's why, this week, we were contacted by a high up DA asking us to direct him to where he could get a prosecution.

Now, I've given you the information. I waited for it to be public. Let's see how smart you 'traders' are. When they tell you the bottom is in in financials, what are you going to believe? When they tell you this is more than half over, what then?

BTW. Word out of DC? 6 or 7 dollar gas. And that's your elected representatives talking. Anyone want to chip in and help us? You need to write you representatives. They do monitor the traffic. Offer your own solutions. But it's time to get involved. I pounded a few off this morning. Letters, that is.

BTW. As shitty a firm as Lehman is, they don't let the shorts kill it. Einhorn is going to be hung out to dry. He spit in the face of Paulson and his pals. Look for a snapback rally bigger than what I originally thought. With eh money laundering, I don't see how they let UBS do business here. I have no 'inside information'. It's just looking at the things I do know, and using it.

One more thing. I've been following the Europeans via UK Online. They are at war with "Short sellers". Not "naked short sellers. I believe someplace in these archives, I said that when the excrement hit the wind oscillator, they would blur the two. Conclusion. Look for massive regulation that cripples themarkets even more than Wall St. crippled them.

Have a nice weekend.:D
 
Quote from flytiger:

Like I"ve said, how do you do 25% year in and out with bigger poolsof money? You cheat. It's the only way. Any model in the world tells you that.

\
More...

I dont know how high you can compound, I stopped taking new accounts at $26 million and my returns had compressed substantially, but still remainded slightly over 25%. As I said though, I have no idea how far I could have scaled it up, and the simple fact that I may not have been able to do it has nothing to do with someone elses ability to do it or not do it.
 
Quote from jem:


Finally - I ask you this would the ceo of exxon mobil care about naked short sellers...

No - would gm.. Maybe - are they a viable business? I do not know but if they have a book value or a break up value someone like kerkorian steps in an screws the shorts.
More...

Tah Dah!!!! Thats the entire point about this entire naked short shit. It doesnt matter, if a company has value, real value to it, its not going anyplace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top