Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Non-Tech : Auric Goldfinger's Short List -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Deeber who wrote (8145)	8/19/2001 5:27:53 PM
From: SusieQ1065	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Hi Deeber, what a nightmare. I had a similar situation with Datek about a year ago(but on a much less grander scale than yours). I had purchased some call options on NTAP for $700 each. Then sold them the next day for $1400. About four days later, an entry showed up in my account, showing I was short the calls I had sold for $1400.. Called Datek, they said the original purchase of the calls at $700 was a "mistaken transaction", and I now needed to cover the calls I was short, which by this time, would be at a loss. I wasn't at all happy with losing my original profit, let alone having to cover at a loss...so upon advice from some other SI'ers, I wrote to Datek's "Compliance Dept" and stated that if it wasn't resolved within 10 days, I would be making a complaint to the SEC. Datek called me within four days of my sending the letter to the compliance dept, and said they were reinstating my original purchase of the calls,at the original price,(which restored my original profit) and I no longer had a short position in the calls. Guess these guys don't want to mess with the SEC...

To: Deeber who wrote (8145)	8/19/2001 5:40:09 PM
From: RockyBalboa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 19428

Ponte Nossa! Jesus. Actually they issued 26 new (different?) certs for one old, didn't they? At least it was announced that way. What I see from my online brokers is that they have actually far-reaching rights to trade in your account, for several reasons like buy-in a short position when the shares aren't available to borrow, liquidate "highly concentrated" positions whatever that is. When I read through the agreements I signed with one online broker then it looks like he is indemnified for everything, especially computer failure (inacessability of trading sites), human error on his side, no assessment of non-solicited trades (which online trades always are...) Before sueing you should check back with an experienced lawyer to which rights and indemnifications (for the broker) you consented when you opened the account. My personal opinion is: The buy-in is difficult to contest as the shares can not be borrowed easily and brokers are usually entitled to carry out buy-ins when delivery of the shares requires it. The human error should be covered by insurance which the broker should have contracted to mitigate such damages. It will be difficult to prove what happened as long as you don't have a copy of the taped conversations.

To: Deeber who wrote (8145)	8/20/2001 1:05:53 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 19428

Dweeber, that's really funny! It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy. I guess it's Karma. I hope you get more problems like that. My legal advice [since you asked] is in future don't sell things which don't belong to you. If you don't know what belongs to you, you should. Another piece of legal advice, read your contracts. Mqurice PS: No, I don't lurk this zone and don't follow you. I didn't know you still exist. I saw it in Hot Stocktalk, thought I'd click it to see what's popular for shorting and there you were. I wonder if you remember why I think you deserve this - [you hoped I'd go to jail and be beaten to a pulp etc... and never apologized for your faulty remarks - I hope they never compensate you... with luck, the SEC will jail you for selling stock which wasn't yours]