Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony, Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Anthony @ Equity Investigations, Dear Anthony,

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: SECteacher who wrote (95702)	10/2/2006 11:04:47 AM
From: Jeffrey S. Mitchell	Read Replies (1) of 122087

Did you read the post I referenced on this thread? To quote the key line from the blog: "...144 turned out to be incorrectly marked long, subsequently failing. That's around 97% incorrectly coded as long. But still, FTD. If logic is not your strong suit, I'll break it down for you: 1. It was my contention from day 1 that FTDs are just that-- failures to deliver. You can't assume all FTDs are naked shorts. 2. Since the DTC would not reveal how the FTDs were coded (long or short), Patrick Byrne of Overstock filed an FOI request with the DTC. As you can see above, 97% ended up being coded as LONG. 3. Case closed? Of course not. Hence the conspiracy theory that the trades were incorrectly coded as long. As if, for example, someone at the DTC was paid off to switch the tags so to speak. 4. Furthermore, let's say there really is an evil naked short DTC mole plant switching tags. If the stock were so viciously naked shorted that day, why did the price go up? Did you read Bobo's explanation for this that I posted? Entertainment at its best. - Jeff

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next