If you read the posts of those that defend NSS or claim it is "no problem," most degenerate into a name-calling contest. There is incredible effort put out to attack ad hominem each of the individuals and even posters on message boards.
So, I find your comment particularly "off."
Instead of debating, I'd prefer you cut the personal attacks and I'd suggest that those on the other side, including myself, do the same.
The reasons for Bob O'Brien's anonymity, and his right to be anonymous is something we should all defend, is IMO the desire by industry insiders to destroy an argument by attacking the speaker, rather than to discuss the issue.
I don't agree with everything Bob O'Brien has said, but I do admire his message, his desire, his ability to bring this issue to the public. I also admire his ability to make his opponents look foolish. You followed, no doubt, the way he scammed those who spent significant resources, trying to track him down, eventually to a strip club. Masterful IMO.
But let's do away with the personal issues.
In any debate, each side makes points that are better than others. I'm not claiming that each and every argument is a winner. That's not reality. On the other hand, you may point to a particular weak argument and then conclude that nothing should be changed. I find that disingenuous.
Let's agree that things have to change and start to go forward. You seem to agree that current rules should be enforced and that disclosure needs to mandatory within the current rules. Let's start with that.
As I've pointed out in the past few posts, I'm not necessarily for more regulation. I'm for more effective and efficient regulation. I'm not a strong government fanatic, thinking that government can solve our problems. If anything, I'm on the other end, having dealt with many, many areas of government inefficiency throughout my life. However, that doesn't mean that the status quo should stay and it's foolish I believe to argue that it should. The system is broken and needs to be changed.
As to the effect on our markets, changes always bring disruption. Industry always claims it's the worst thing in the world.
No doubt, you remember the industry cry about decimalization and how it would put MM's, brokers, etc., out of business.
Finally, your point about PIPE's and the attempt to categorize one scam vs. another. The theme in my own posts is to get rid of the scam, irrespective of who is scamming.
With respect to PIPE's, I don't care if it's insiders selling, touts selling, the vulture funds selling, hedge funds selling, traders selling on leaked information, management selling, or some combination of all, I am for changing the environment so that all aspects of this scam is eliminated. It's just not fair for retail investors to be sitting out there with a big "S" for Sucker, while the industry, in many facets, does this scam.
That's what I see in the articles about PIPE's. I see hedge funds. I see advance SHORTING into deals. It may not be the technical definition of Naked Short Scamming, but it's a scam and the result is the same. You seem to want to paint me and others into a "one-scam trick pony," and that's where you're wrong. As the previous paragraph clearly states, I'm not saying that others are not involved in this scam. Don't put the words into my mouth.
The title of this board was as broad as I could manage. It's not just technical Naked Short Selling. It's advance selling into deals. It's the inherent toxic aspects of convertible. It's dumping that the public has to pay for. It's changing the MM system so that it really is "making markets" and not just "lining of pockets," at the public's expense.
Let's change all of this. There is no need for anyone, not just hedge funds, to have an almost free ride on the back of public investors. |
