SI
SI
discoversearch

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.
Non-Tech : Meet Gene, a NASDAQ Market Maker -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/9/2000 6:26:24 PM
From: davealex  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1426
 
LPS5, you are a breath of fresh air in an otherwise conspiracy-polluted atmosphere.

BTW, whenever I empty the dryer, and I have only ONE sock from a pair I KNOW FOR A FACT I put in there, I have always assumed a MM was responsible (probably NITE). But thanks to you, I am starting to see the light. Let's hope your clear explanations work on these other paranoid puff-a-lumps.

Dave

PS. Let me know if Levitt brings up the sock issue. Thanks.



To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/9/2000 7:16:29 PM
From: gene_the_mm  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1426
 
I WISH I WAS AS ELOQUENT AS LPS5...

That was so well-said I think that was the best conspiracy 'retort' I have ever read.

Hats off to you LPS5 as once again you have proven what an incredible asset you are to the readers of this forum, myself included.

Keep up the great work,

-- Gene



To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/9/2000 10:20:41 PM
From: ISOMAN  Respond to of 1426
 
That was beautiful...

People need to spam that all over the net...

(never happen, it isn't what they want to hear...even though they need to hear it.)



To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/10/2000 12:19:36 AM
From: If only I'd held  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1426
 
Ya know...I always try to keep an open mind and listen to learn. I learn new things every day thanks to people like you. This is my 4th response to you, but the only one that I will hit the send button on.

Fact is...yes, I lost some money today. Take a guess?? Yeah, it was CNCT. I was a premarket dip buyer. Bought my initial position at 7, then 6-1/2, then 5-1/4, until I was sitting on 20,000 shares all in the red. Perhaps I am a fool. And maybe I underestimate what a firm or a trader is willing to do to get out of a position. Yup, that's probably it. Just a bad day to try to sell a disappointing stock. And no, I certainly would not have proof that anyone was naked shorting it today, or any other day. I am just a peon in this market, and I wouldn't have access to such information. So, let's just say, I made a mistake today, did a bad trade, and I overreacted.

I can see why a market maker or trader would use naked shorting to try to maintain an orderly market. And I realize that it is risky for these traders to initiate this type of position. But I also feel it is being abused in some (perhaps rare)cases. And if it is abused by one, it can be abused by all. And since the door is open to the abuse, I feel it should be banned altogether. I just don't beleive a market maker should have this advantage over the individual investor. It creates an uneven playing feild, and like I said, it just leaves the door open for abuse. I am sure 99% of the market makers that use naked shorting as a tool for maintaining an orderly market, do it in an ethical and legal manner. It's that 1% that use it to "squash" a rally or "kill the dream". Who is telling these market makers to deplete their inventory anyway? I don't tell them when or where to sell. Sometimes, they just plain sell too soon. Who's fault is that? If I sell my inventory too soon, I have to think quickly and adjust my strategy. I either buy back, or I sit it out, or I wait till it's gone too far, and I short. But I don't have the luxury of just shorting at will to kill a rally, so that I can get my inventory back from traders I have scared away. You say we would have total chaos in these stocks if the market makers couldn't use naked shorting to maintain an orderly market? Well hey, guess what, we already have that. And the fact is, sometimes it is naked short positions that actually add to the chaos. I beleive that at the end of the day, all stock in a given company should be accounted for, whether it is a crappy company or not.

You know, when the SEC was working on the selective disclosure rule, there were a lot of analysts/firms (all of them I'm sure) that really opposed the ruling, because it basically took away their right to trade on what I consider insider information. But the rule was passed, and it was a small step toward leveling the playing feild. Will it be effective? You bet, unless someone breaks the law, which will happen.

I don't think any trader should be allowed to short a stock unless the stock is borrowed and accounted for. Hey, if they have something in the wings, like an upcoming secondary or private placement or something where they know the stock will be made available to them, that's different. But then, it should be disclosed publicly before the naked short position is initiated right?

Like I said, I am learning every day. Sometimes, I just plain spout off before I have my facts straight. But this naked shorting....I don't like it. I don't like the idea that I have to trade against other traders that have this advantage over me. And I don't like that it creates additional volatility in an already volatile market place. These guys are profiting from an advantage that I do not have. No good.

I don't beleive changing this rule would affect more than maybe 1% of the market makers out there, since like I said, most are probably doing it in an ethical manner. It's that 1% that spoil it for the rest of them I guess. You know, the one that really screws up, then has to run around town trying to figure out a way to cover his position. He adds volatility and disturbs the marketplace. He often interupts a company's normal flow of business as well. How do you get rid of him? You get rid of the rule.

And by the way, we are talking money here, not shooting people.



To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/10/2000 9:48:11 AM
From: dannobee  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 1426
 
LPS5 or Gene, I think most people don't quite understand the turn of events that occurs in this "naked shorting" conspiracy, at least the majority of people who play the OTCBB or Pinks. The chain of events probably started with a development stage company that has little or no revenues issuing a PR hype statement. They (the company) used this PR as a front to encourage trading volume and some of the public get sucked in. As the stock price starts to go up, the company starts selling stock through its market makers, just enough to keep the stock price going slightly higher. As the new wave of buyers subsides, the company/market maker tries his best to complete the order of the company, but now some of the early buyers are starting to sell the stock. The price starts to fall, and the company/market maker quits selling the stock, but it's too late. The price tanks, and on the 10Q, the shares outstanding just happens to have doubled, and the sales are reported on the statement of cash flows, under "cash flows from financing activities." No naked shorting took place, no "collusion" by the market makers, no illegal activities. Later the company issues a PR stating the precipitous drop was caused by the shorting by the market makers and asks the current stockholders to ask their broker to mail their stock certificates in order to combat this problem. The real reason the company does this is to reduce the liquidity when they need to finance another round of selling into the hype.
If the opponents of naked shorting really want to make a difference, why don't they learn how to read financial statements? If the SEC does ban naked shorting, and it is revealed that the market makers weren't engaged in naked shorting of their favorite bulletin board flea bag, who are they then going to blame? That is the question that I ask.

Danno



To: LPS5 who wrote (1149)10/10/2000 11:20:32 AM
From: If only I'd held  Respond to of 1426
 
EDIT: wrong thread.