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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Americans 4 "No Own - No Sell" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 2:44:43 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q1. Does Rule 10a-1 permit relatively unrestricted short selling in an advancing market? If not, please provide specific examples to demonstrate that this objective is not currently met. My opinion is YES! However, this regulation does nothing to prevent manipulation through off-shore naked short selling. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 2:54:37 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q2. Does more short selling occur in an advancing market or a declining one? That is hard to tell since very little transparency with checks and balance exists in regards to regulated short selling much less naked short selling. There are no regulations for brokerage firms and short sellers, especially off-shore to have to report their short positions. Because all the data that is available for any research report is only those number that are voluntarily offered by brokerage firms. Thus because the information and available data is incomplete and not conclusively available this question can not be answered with any factual underlying basis except speculation. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:19:59 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q3. Should the threshold price for suspending the tick test be the previous closing price of the security? No, I would not think so because the previous closing could be lower and thus that undermines the tick test. Of course with offshore the tick test is not even an issue. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:22:54 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q4. Should the threshold price correlate to a point change or a percentage change in the price of a security? Yes, I could see a suspension should the security rise more than a certain percent which would put a curb on the advancing market price. But what difference does it make really since the off-shore naked short selling does not care about a preset price, threshold price or trigger price. They are just selling the market down. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:38:10 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q5. Would volatile markets create complexity for this structure as short sellers must continually take into account the market price of the security to determine whether short selling is restricted? There is nothing wrong with causing short sellers a degree of complexity if it does at all since it’s perfectly acceptable that long term investors have to deal with the issue. Long term investors make nothing off the short selling traders using there stock their hard earned dollars paid for. If there is no complexity it is like stealing candy form a baby. Of course, off-shore could careless about complexity. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:42:26 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q6. If the security's price moves below the threshold price, should the tick test remain in effect during the trading session even if the price subsequently moves above the threshold price? Absolutely, naked short selling from off-shore does not need any help tanking our markets. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:43:52 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q7. Is there another price or manner of determining a more effective threshold for this purpose? Not that I can think of because not all short selling is equal and required transparency does not exist. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:48:16 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q8. Could a short seller initiate downward momentum on the price of a security through short selling down to the threshold price? If so, could this momentum cause the depressing effect on the market for a security that Rule 10a-1 is intended to prevent? ABSOLUTELY! on both accounts. Until stricter transparency is required if the price falls below the threshold short selling should be halted. Off shore naked short selling will take over for sure. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 3:49:35 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Q9. Is it appropriate or preferable to base short sale regulation on general market movements, rather than the price of individual securities? No each individual security is its own market. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 4:01:07 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

Summary of questions 1-10 ... What it appears to be is the short sellers within the US are ticked because they are limited when off-shore can just submit a sell and they do not even have to borrow anything. The order comes in and no proof of ownership is required thus no one knows if it is a short or a rightful owner selling from off-shore. To lift restrictions would make all the markets as manipulated as the unmonitored OTCBB where naked shorting has crust that market. Already there exists abuses as it is in the cases made for illegal short selling. If the restrictions are lifted then the markets would all be like the OTCBB, which is totally and maliously manipulated. Presently with no transparency all our markets are manipulated to a point that it is ridiculous. P2bAAAT & DSAS

To: Ga Bard who wrote (2)	9/30/2001 5:31:20 PM
From: Ga Bard	Respond to of 455

B. Providing an Exception for Actively Traded Securities Some of the Commission's anti-manipulation rules assume that highly liquid securities are less vulnerable to manipulation and abuse than securities that are less liquid. For example, Rule 101 of Regulation M has an exception for securities with a public float value of at least $150 million and an average daily trading volume of at least $1 million. A similar approach may be effective for regulating short sales. Q10. Are highly liquid securities less vulnerable to the abuses that Rule 10a-1 is designed to prevent? Yes to a degree unless and off-shore anti-american force wants to nail the market with all the non transparency and disclosure America has which should be there to stop the manipulation of our markets. Protect AMerica. Q11. Are the Regulation M requirements for liquidity under the exception in Rule 101(c)(1) adequate standards for this purpose? If not, what values would work better for this purpose? More restrictions to prevent abuses like off-shore markets have in place. Q12. Rule 10a-1 is not focused solely on preventing manipulative activity. Is it appropriate to use these anti-manipulation approaches in the short sale context? Absolutely. For both regulated and naked. P2bAAAT & DSAS